KARAMAT ALI Versus State Sohail Anwar
ORDER
Through this petition, Karamat Ali, the petitioner, sought his post-arrest bail in case FIR No.140/2012, dated 02.1.2012, offence under sections 420, 468, 471, 477-A, 409, 34, P.P.C., read with section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, registered with Police Station FIA/CCC, Lahore.
2. This is second petition filed by the petitioner in view of looking for the above cited relief. The earlier one i.e. Crl. Misc. No.10288-B of 2014 was dismissed as having not been pressed vide order dated 02.10.2014.
3. The nutshell of the prosecution story, as provided in the crime report, is that the petitioner being an OG -III/Cashier/Pension Incharge Section of National Bank of Pakistan, Peer Bahar Shah Branch, Sheikhupura, while joining hands with other bank officials, abused his official position, altering/adding figures in the vouchers of the pensioners by embezzled a huge amount of Rs.2,39,55,712/- and thus caused loss to the public exchequer.
4. Heard. Record perused.
5. No doubt this is second post-arrest bail petition as the first one was disposed of without touching the merits, so, this petition fated to be decided on merits. The prosecution version staged in the crime report is that the petitioner has been burdened with the responsibility of swindling an amount of Rs.2,39,55,712/- from the National Bank of Pakistan, the learned counsel, while arguing this case, drew the attention of this Court to this vital aspect of the case that according to the SOP of the Bank, there are certain stages which are to be taken before assigning the responsibility on the shoulder of the petitioner. As per SOP, before the voucher coming into hands of the petitioner, it should have been verified by the two senior officers regarding genuineness of the vouchers and then the liability of the petitioner comes into field while making the payment. It is very astonishing that the other accused/officers of the bank have not joined the investigation, which clearly creates doubts in our mind that bank is trying to blanket the misdeeds of his officers and throwing of the filth of obstruction regarding huge amount on part of the petitioner. We have also noticed that during the course of investigation, nothing has been recovered from the petitioner and this fact has gone un-rebutted by the prosecution side. Needless to say that it was the stance of learned counsel for the bank that petitioner was living beyond his means and his two properties has been taken on surface, however, no effort has been made by the Investigating Agency to attach the said properties under any provision of law in connection with the accusation levelled by the prosecution.
6. We have tentatively considered the facts on earth. As per the contention of learned petitioner's counsel, the petitioner was arrested on 20.3.2014 and in the previous bail application, which was disposed of by this Court on 02.10.2014, the learned trial Court was directed to cease with the trial within four months, however, despite of the clear direction of this Court, more than one year and two months have already been elapsed and only six witnesses have been taken into witness box and rest of 54 witnesses who have been reflects in the calendar of witnesses are still awaited to be taken into witness box. It is cardinal principle of criminal law that every person has a right of speedy and fair trial as provided under Article 10-A of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973. The petitioner is behind the rots for the last more than one year and two months and there would be no use for this incarceration. This would tantamount to be punishment without trial. Guidance in this regard is sought from the ratio decidendi of august Supreme Court of Pakistan in the cases of Gul Zaman v. The State (1999 SCMR 1271), Arif Sharif v. Chariman NAB (2004 SCMR 1805), Hamid Ali v. The State (2009 SCMR 734) and Himesh Khan v. The National Accountability Bureau (NAB), Lahore and others (2015 SCMR 1092).
7. We could not find any good reason to believe that there is single iota of evidence, which connects the accused with the commission of offence. Even the prosecution badly failed to connect the accused with any concrete evidence like handwriting expert report which striked to our mind that the petitioner committed the offence or adding or altering the figures in the vouchers as the vouchers have not been sent to the Forensic Science Agency for handwriting comparison till date.
8. The evidence available with the prosecution is of documentary nature and has already been collected by the Investigating Agency, during the course of interrogation, therefore, keeping the petitioner behind the bars would be of no use. Even otherwise, there is no chance of tampering with the prosecution evidence. Humble reliance in this regard is placed on the ratio decidendi of august Supreme Court of Pakistan in the case of Saeed Ahmed v. The State (1995 SCMR 170).
9. For the reasons stated hereinabove and the guidance sought from the obiter dicta of the Apex Court, we have been persuaded to hold that prima facie there exists reasonable grounds which push the petitioner's case within ambit of further inquiry in terms of section 497, Cr.P.C.
10. In view of above, this petition is accepted and petitioner is allowed post-arrest bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs.5,00,000/- with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned trial Court.
11. It is, however, clarified that the observations made hereinabove are tentative in nature, and strictly confined to this disposal of this bail petition.
SL/K-8/L Bail allowed.