BARKAT ALI Versus State
ORDER
SHAHNAWAZ TARIQ, J.--- Through captioned post-arrest bail application, applicant Barkat Ali has impugned order dated 28.08.2015, whereby his earlier bail application was declined by the learned trial Court.
2. Relevant facts narrated in instant bail application are that complainant with the approval of competent authority lodged FIR that accused Barkat Ali, Food Supervisor, Incharge Food Center, Reti, Khenjo and Jampur, Daharki, was appointed to procure wheat, but after procuring the wheat, he did not deposit the same in Government Centers; hence he has caused losses to the Government exchequer worth Rs.12,007,200/- by way of misappropriation.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant contended that applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the instant case with ulterior motives that applicant had already deposited the required wheat at all the three Centers; that District Food Controller, Ghotki at Mirpur Mathelo, vide letter dated 01.02.2013, had confirmed that applicant had deposited 5182 bags in Reti WPC; that applicant had deposited 10,000 bags in WPC Jampur and 40,000 bags in WPC Khenjo, and such entries were made in relevant register which were authenticated by District Food Controller, Ghotki; that learned trial Court is lying vacant and trial has not been started there is no possibility of early disposal of the case; hence he deserves for concession of bail.
4. While controverting the above submissions, learned APG contended that to the extent of wheat for WPC Reti is concerned, he has no objection for confirmation of bail; that wheat was not deposited in remaining both centers by applicant himself, however, he conceded that in all 50,000 bags were deposited in Jampur and Khenjo WPCs.
5. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and examined the material available on record minutely.
6. Perusal of record reflects that applicant was posted as Food Supervisor, Incharge Wheat Food Centers of Reti, Khenjo and Jampur, and was assigned task to procure seasonal wheat from the locality as per directives of the Government. Subsequently, District Food Controller Ghotki vide letter dated 27.11.2014, addressed to Deputy Director Food, Sukkur Region, pertaining to the position of old wheat stocks of crops in District Ghotki, at various procuring Centers, and mentioned name of applicant at S.No.4 regarding non-availability of wheat at Reti, Khenjo and Jampur WPCs, during the tenure of posting of applicant.
7. Perusal of letter dated 01.02.2013, (available at page-37 of the file) issued by District Food Controller, Ghotki, addressed to Deputy Director Food, Sukkur Region, reflects that the name of applicant is mentioned at S.No.08 with endorsement that applicant had deposited 5182 wheat bags at Reti WPC. It is significant to mention that Government of Sindh, Food Department had also published auction notice in news paper through Section Officer (Wheat), Food Department, Karachi on 14.02.2014, for disposal/auction of the old wheat available in different Districts of the Province including District Ghotki, which prima facie demonstrates the availability of required wheat at the relevant Centers including Ghotki District.
8. Perusal of extract of Regional Food Directorate Register vide S.No.9 emanates that 10,000 bags of wheat were deposited at WPC Jampur on 17.05.2013, through Aftab Ali. Likewise, extract of said Register vide S.No.18 also transpires that 40,000 bags were deposited on 10.06.2013, at Khenjo WPC through Abdul Jabbar, and both extracts were signed and attested by District Food Controller, Ghotki.
9. It is well settled that deeper appreciation of evidence is not permissible under the law while deciding the question of bail. It is for the trial Court to thresh out the truth and determine the factum of non-availability of wheat at Reti, Jampur and Khanjo WPCs, which is purely based on examination of documentary evidence. The sole admission of prosecution regarding deposit of required wheat at Reti WPC, has prima facie strengthened the contention of applicant regarding deposit of the required wheat, which is sufficient to make the case of further inquiry. Consequently, if out of set of allegations leveled by complainant one allegation seems to be doubtful or false, the authenticity of rest of the allegations requires further inquiry. It is well settled that any slightest benefit of doubt even at bail stage, will be counted in favour of accused.
10. Indeed, investigation has completed and Challan has already been submitted before the Court, thus applicant is no more required further for investigation. Entire case of prosecution is based on documentary evidence which is already available with the prosecution, thus there is no apprehension of tampering with prosecution evidence and further detention of applicant in jail will not serve any useful purpose. Applicant is behind the bars for more than 07 months and trial Court is lying vacant and there is no possibility of the commencement of trial in near future.
11. Considering the above facts and circumstances, applicant has succeeded to make out a case for grant of bail on the ground of further enquiry as envisaged under section 497(2), Cr.P.C. Consequently, applicant is admitted to post arrest bail subject to his furnishing solvent surety in the sum of Rs.200,000/- and P.R Bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of trial Court.
12. The observations made supra are tentative in nature and learned trial Court shall decide the case strictly on merits.
SL/B-6/Sindh Bail allowed.