ASIF KUDIA vs THE STATE
This matter concerns a post-arrest bail application filed by the applicant, a director of Eastern Capital Limited, who was charged under sections 409, 420, 477-A, 109, and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The prosecution alleged that the applicant, in connivance with other company officials, unauthorizedly pledged client shares to banks to secure financing, resulting in financial loss to clients upon the company's default. The core legal question was whether the applicant was entitled to bail given the lack of evidence connecting him to the alleged criminal acts and the principle of consistency. The applicant argued that he held a negligible shareholding, had not signed any incriminating documents, and that no witness statements implicated him. The State, noting that a co-accused facing similar allegations had previously been granted bail, did not oppose the application. The Court held that the applicant was entitled to bail, applying the principle of consistency with the co-accused's case, and admitted him to bail subject to furnishing a surety and a personal recognizance bond.
- Does the principle of consistency apply when granting bail to a co-accused in similar circumstances?
- Is a director of a company automatically liable for the unauthorized pledging of client shares by the company without evidence of personal involvement?
- Can bail be granted when the State does not oppose the application based on the treatment of a co-accused?
- Section 409, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 420, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 477-A, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 109, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 161, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
1. ' The applicant/accused Asif Khudia has through the present application sought bail in Crime No,5 of 2012 registered at Police Station FIA, Corporate Crime Circle, Karachi, for offences under sections 409, 420, 477-A, 109, 34, P. P . C.
2. ' The brief facts of the prosecution case are that the applicant/accused who is one of the five directors of Eastern Capital Limited, a brokerage house dealing in securities ("the company"), in connivance with co-accused namely Munir Muhammad Ladha, Executive Chairman of the Company, Abdul Samad Ladha, Chief Executive Officer of the Company and one Mudassar Iftikhar, the Karachi, Stock Exchange Limited and four different banks, a nominated in the F.I.R., pledged shares of their various clients including the complainant Aman Aziz Siddiqui with the banks to secure certain finances obtained by the Company uinauthorizedly and illegally, and as a consequence of default committed by the company the nominated banks have sold such pledged shares, causing, colossal loss to the complainant and other clients of the Company.
3. Muhammad Ashraf Kazi, learned counsel for the applicant, submits that though the applicant/accused was arrested on 31-3-2012 and has remained in the custody of FIA up to 11-4- 2012, absolutely no such material could be obtained by the I/O which may connect the applicant/accused with the alleged offence. He submits that none of the witnesses whose section 161, Cr.P.C. Statements have been recorded by the I/O have alleged any personal involvement of the present applicant/accused in the entire transaction. Learned counsel submits that although the I/O has seized the entire record from the office of the Company, however, no document has come to fore which may remotely connect the applicant/accused with the crime. Mr. Kazi further submits that the present applicant/accused has neither signed nor executed a single document in respect of the subject transaction and holds merely 0.02% shares in the Company. He further submits that absolutely no allegation has been made against the applicant/accused by the company throughout Mr. Kazi submits that the applicant/accused is absolutely innocent and has been falsely implicated in the case. He refers to order dated 18-4-2012 passed by this Bench in Criminal Bail Application No,380 of 2012 were in the similar facts and circumstances a co-accused namely Syed Muhammad Furqan has been granted bail and requests that following the principle of consistency by the applicant/accused may also be admitted to bail as he is even otherwise entitled the grant of bail.
4. ' Mr. Ashiq Raza, learned D.A.-G. Appearing for the State, submits that since in the similar facts and circumstance the co-accused, as submitted by Mr. Kazi, has already been granted bail, he would not oppose the bail application.
5. ' In the circumstances, the applicant/accused is admitted to bail subject to his furnishing a surety in the sum of Rs, 1,000,000 (One Million) and PR bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Nazir of this Court.