1. ' Applicant Abid Khan is facing trial in F.I.R. No,130 of 2004 registered at Police Station Mithadar for an offence punishable under sections 408/468/471, P.P.C. In the Court of learned XI Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate, Karachi South.
2. ' The bail plea moved in the trial Court but the same was dismissed, the applicant being dissatisfied by the bail rejection order he preferred to file bail application before the VIIth Additional Sessions Judge, Karachi South but the same bail application was also dismissed vide order, dated 18-9-2004 then the applicant has preferred to file application before this Court for seeking bail on the similar grounds.
3. ' The brief facts of the prosecution case as enumerated in the F.I.R. Are reproduced hereinbelow in extenso:-- "Received enquiry papers along with application of the applicant Muneer Usman on 26-5-2004, from the office of S.H.O. For the registration of case. The application is as under. To the S.H.O.
4. Mithadar Police Station Karachi, Dear Sir, I am the incharge of the sale office of Indus (Pvt.) Ltd.
5. Situated on ground floor State Life Building in Shahra-e-Liaquat, Karachi. That Abid Mian son of Babu Khan residing at House No,104/3, Sector 5E, Karachi was working here for the last twelve years as salesman in our sales office. He committed embezzlement amounting to the criminal breach of trust. Misappropriation sale products amounts to Rs,748,749 (Rupees Seven lacs forty-eight thousand and seven hundred forty-nine only). It is submitted for your information and action as under. That during the scrutiny of the bill which were submitted by the accused in office many irregularities were found therein, the accused got invoices/bills made items for delivering to shops in Karachi area complainant found that accused submitted bills in which fake names of the shops were mentioned and after receiving items, from sale office, the accused sold the items to others shops and receive the cash amount and deposited these bills as unpaid in the office. The accused fraudulently misappropriated different amount in different times and up till now. The accused has personally misappropriated the amount for his personal use Rs,7,48,749 finding is the default of the bills showing the misappropriated the amount done by the accused salesman Abid Khan. I conducted the inquiry into the shops and asked number of shopkeepers. The owner of the shops told that they paid amount to the accused and there is no balance towards them, most of bills were found to be bogus and fabricated and mostly shops are not existed in the area as per bills. I called the accused and inquired. He admitted that he had misappropriated the amount and he gave me in writing that he will pay the same amount to the company. After that accused again given in writing on stamp paper that he will deposit the property papers for surety if he failed to pay to the company and the company can sale the property and recover the amount but the accused did not come back with the property papers and he has absconded. It is requested to arrest the accused for theft criminal breach of misappropriation cheating and committing forgery and depriving the company amount by dishonest means and converted it to his own use. Yours faithfully (Sd.) Muneer Usman."
6. ' Dr. Imran Liaquat Hussain has contended that according to F.I.R. Incident was taken place between on 2-10-2003 to 18-2-2004 whereas the F.I.R. Was recorded on 26-5-2004 and no plausible explanation is disclosed in the F.I.R. Regarding the belated F.I.R. The F.I.R. Was registered under sections 408/468/471, P.P.C. And after due investigation sections 468 and 471 have been deleted in the charge-sheet. The applicant accused before lodging F.I.R. Submitted application to S.H.O. Police Station Mithadar and 5-3-2004 by disclosing that one Naeem Akhtar and Muzaffar Hashmi forcibly got signature on stamp paper of Rs,20 and threats were extended for dire consequences. The service of the applicant/accused was terminated without issuance of show- cause notice and no investigation was made in respect of the application filed by the applicant.
7. ' It is further urged that offence is not punishable with imprisonment for life or imprisonment for ten years and grant of bail is right of applicant/accused as the offence is only punishable for seven years. Learned counsel for the applicant in respect of his contention relied upon the case of Tariq Bashir and 5 others v. The State PLD 1995 SC 34.
8. ' Conversely Mr, Khalid Mehmood Siddiqui learned State Counsel vehemently opposes and submits that the applicant himself filed an application and admitted his guilt regarding misappropriation and there is further evidence against the applicant/accused in respect of offence as per contents of F.I.R. The applicant/accused has also admitted in writing that he will pay the amount to the company but he failed to deposit the same and ultimately F.I.R. Was registered against him.
9. Learned State Counsel further argues that there is reasonable ground for commission of alleged offence and applicant is not entitled for concession to grant of bail.
10. ' I have heard learned counsel for the respective parties, examined material placed on record and case-law at bar. According to the incident taken place between 2-10-2003 to 18-2-2004 and F.I.R.
11. Was lodged on 26-5-2004 and no plausible reason has been given to explain the delay. Learned State Counsel has admitted that Naeem Akhtar and Muzaffar Hashmi are working as Director and General Manger in the factory. Learned counsel also admitted that there is no record in the police file for issuing of show-cause notice to the applicant before termination of his service. Admittedly there are four witnesses of the alleged allegations in the charge-sheet and they are employees of the factory. The allegations as contained in the prosecution case will be considered by the trial Court regarding commission of offence as the applicant/accused is in custody since 26-4-2004.
12. The case of applicant/accused is not proceeded in the trial Court and it is yet to be determined whether the applicant/accused has committed the alleged offence. Admittedly there is allegation that Naeem Akhtar and Muzaffar Hashmi being employees of the factory got signature under show of arm on stamp paper by extending threats of dire consequences. Early trial of an accused is right.
13. It appears that examination of the witnesses will take some time.
14. ' In view of the foregoing reasons I am of the view that case of the applicant/accused requires further inquiry as contemplated under section 497(2), Cr.P.C. Bail is granted and applicant accused Abid Khan son of Babu Khan shall be released subject to furnishing surety in the sum of Rs,2,00,000 and P.R. Bond in like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court.
15. ' Criminal Bail Application No,974 of 2004 stands disposed of.