NOOR MUHAMMAD KHAN Versus State

ORDER

The learned counsel has moved this application under section 498, Cr. P. C. for the grant of bail before arrest of the petitioner who is nominated in F.I.R. No.4 of 2005, dated 3‑1‑2005, under sections 406, 420, P.P.C. at Police Station Shadman, Lahore. According to the F.I.R., a huge amount of Rs.51,05,840 has been misappropriated by the petitioner and his co‑accused who has already been arrested.

2. Briefly, while the petitioner was working as Cashier at Habib Bank Limited, Shadman Branch, Lahore, he received the above said amount in the above capacity deposited from M.S. Vikar Enterprises Limited, Lahore, but failed to deposit the same in the account C.D./AC No.1935‑26. The allegation is that he did not enter the entries of the amount in the relevant register but only on counterfoil. The cash was not deposited by him or by his co‑accused in the coffer of Bank and the same was misappropriated. On complaint of the customer which was made on 18‑8‑2004, to the Branch Manager, an inquiry was held which revealed the above mentioned misappropriation which resulted into registration of F. I. R. No. 4 of 2005.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner used to work in the morning shift as a Cashier, deposit was deposited to the bank in the evening shift. For evening shift, his co‑accused was working as a Cashier. He further submits that the amount which he returned to the Bank after registration of present case was arranged by his mother by pledging .her house in the name of somebody. He further submits that there is a delay of more than three months in lodging F. I. R.

4. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the complainant submits that contents of the F. I. R. clearly read that the money was being deposited in the bank in morning time shift and it was always received by the petitioner. He has further submitted that inquiry at the level of Regional Commissioner has held petitioner responsible for the alleged misappropriation. He further submits that co‑accused is already in judicial lock‑up. An amount of Rs.50,000 has already been recovered from him. He submits that still a huge amount of recovery is due from the petitioner.

5. The learned counsel for the State adopts the submission of the learned counsel for the complainant.

6. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned counsel for the complainant and State.

7. The petitioner is on interim pre‑arrest bail. Pre‑arrest bail is considered in the criminal administration of justice as an extraordinary concession from the Court which is awarded in extra‑ordinary circumstances. For example, when by a bare reading of the F.I.R. no case is made out; when there is obvious mala fide on part of the police or the complainant, obvious political victimization on part of the Government or when the finding of Investigating Officer is not in accord with overwhelming evidence. Unfortunately, all the above grounds are missing in the present case. The petitioner has been categorically nominated in the F.I.R. and there is no allegation of mala fide even alleged against police. On the previous dates of proceedings, the learned counsel for the petitioner referred inquiry which was being conducted by the Regional Chief Manager and he further requested that result of the same be awaited. The result of the inquiry has been received which also does not exonerate petitioner. Therefore, in view of whatever is stated above, I feel that this is hot a fit" case for grant of extraordinary concession of pre‑arrest bail. Hence, this application is dismissed.

N.H.Q./N‑33/L Pre‑arrest bail refused.