Syed ZULQARNAIN SHAH Versus State
ORDER
KHADIM HUSSAIN M. SHAIKH, J .---Through the captioned bail application, applicant Syed Zulqarnain Shah, Sub-Accountant, District Accounts Office, Kamber-Shahdadkot at Kamber, seeks his release on post arrest bail in case, emanating from Crime No.15 of 2019, registered at Police Station ACE, Kamber-Shahdadkot at Kamber, for offences under sections 409, 477-A, 34, P.P.C. read with section 5(2), Act-II of 1947, after his bail plea has been declined by the learned Special Judge, Anti-Corruption (Provincial) Larkana, by dismissing his bail application vide impugned Order dated 19.04.2019.
2. Briefly, the facts of the case are that on 14.01.2019, Inspector Iqbal Hyder Khokhar, Circle Officer, ACE, Kamber-Shahdadkot at Kamber lodged the subject FIR on behalf of the State to the effect that on 01.09.2012 ID No.10739081 was issued/hired in the name of JST Sultan Ahmed, who allegedly obtained salaries from school center of Government High School, Mirokhan illegally in collusion of Zulqarnain Shah. Sub-Accountant, District Accounts Office, Kamber Shahdadkot at Kamber. After the investigation, the challan was submitted in the Court of Special Judge, Anti-Corruption (Provincial), Larkana. Earlier applicant Syed Zulqarnain Shah, was admitted to interim pre-arrest bail, by the learned trial court vide order dated 16.01.2019, but subsequently said application of the applicant for pre-arrest bail was dismissed vide order dated 11.04.2019 and he was committed to custody. Thereafter, the applicant filed application for post arrest bail, which has been dismissed by the learned trial Court vide impugned order dated 19.04.2019, hence this bail application.
3. The learned counsel for the applicant has mainly contended that there is inordinate delay of seven years in lodgment of the FIR, which has not been explained by the prosecution; that the applicant is working as Sub-Accountant in District Accounts Office, Kamber-Shahdadkot at Kamber since year 2012 and whereas accused Sultan Ahmed, who has been serving in the Education Department as JST since 1996, was regularly getting the salaries; that there is complete procedural system for issuing I.D to employee by the District Accounts Office, for firstly F.O. Form is signed by the concerned Head Master DDO and then it is to be placed before the District Accounts Officer concerned and after audit by the Auditor District Accounts Office, I.D. is issued to the employee, therefore, per learned Counsel, only the applicant cannot be held responsible for issuing I.D; that the applicant is innocent and he has not committed the offence alleged against him, that the applicant is not beneficiary of the subject amount, as no amount is alleged to have been transferred in the account of the applicant Syed Zulqarnain Shah; that the offence with which the applicant is charged does not fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C. that the applicant is neither previous convict nor is involved in any case of the nature; and, that there is no likelihood of tampering with the evidence by the applicant, as the entire case is based on the documentary evidence. Learned Counsel placing his reliance on the cases of Wasi Ahmed v. The State (2010 YLR 2299), Ahmed Nawaz Solangi and another v. Court of Special Judge Anti-Corruption (Central), Hyderabad and another (2014 YLR 1723 'b'), Ijaz Akhtar v. The State (1978 SCMR 63), Pirzada Bashir Ahmed Shah v. The State (2002 PCr.LJ 168), Saeed Ahmed v. The State (1995 SCMR 170), Saeed Ahmed v. The State (1996 SCMR 1132), Mirza Muhammad Zulfiqar and others v. The State and others (2000 SCMR 1072), Sheraz v. The State (2017 PCr.LJ 561 'd'), Zahid Maseeh and another v. The State (2012 MLD 814 'c'), Fazal Ellahi and another v. The State (2004 SCMR 235), Shahid Umar v. Chairman NAB and 2 others (2019 PCr.LJ 370) and Jameel Akhtar and others v. Chairman National Accountability Bureau and others (2019 PCr.LJ 475), prays for grant of bail to the applicant.
4. The learned Deputy Prosecutor General Sindh, who is assisted by the Investigating Officer, Iqbal Hyder Khokhar, C.O/A C.E Kamber-Shahdadkot at Kamber, has mainly contended that the applicant is nominated in the FIR; and, that co-accused Sultan Ahmed has drawn salaries through bogus I.D with the connivance of the applicant and prays for dismissal of the bail application.
5. I have considered the submissions of the learned Counsel for the applicant, learned Deputy Prosecutor General Sindh and have gone through the material brought on the record and the police file with the assistance of the learned DPG.
6. From a perusal of the record, it would be seen that there is inordinate delay of seven years in lodgment of the FIR, which has not been explained by the prosecution; the applicant is not alleged to be previous convict nor is allegedly involved in any case of the nature. On a query, the learned Deputy Prosecutor General Sindh and the I.O., who is present in person, have stated that no material was collected during the investigation to show that the applicant was beneficiary and as to how much amount was misappropriated or embezzled; that apart from the present applicant, who is Sub-Accountant, no other officer/official from the District Accounts Office, Kamber-Shahdadkot at Kamber was associated to the investigation; and, that the offence with which the applicant is charged does not fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C. Under these circumstances, I am of the considered view that the case requires further enquiry into the guilt of the applicant and his case falls within the ambit of subsection (2) of section 497, Cr.P.C, which entitles him to the grant of concession of bail. In such view of the matter, this bail application was allowed and the applicant was directed to be released on bail subject to his furnishing a solvent surety in the sum of Rs.500,000/- (Five Hundred Thousand) and P.R bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court vide short order announced by me on 20.06.2019 and these are the reasons for the same.
7. The observations made hereinabove are tentative in nature, only for the purpose of deciding this bail application, which shall not, in any manner, influence the learned trial Court while deciding the subject case.
SA/Z-15/Sindh Bail granted.