' Ijaz Mahmood and Tanveer Ahmad petitioners along with other persons are accused of offences under section 409/420/467/468/471/201/109, P.P.0 and under section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947. Three cases were registered against the petitioners initially by local Police, Faisalabad on 5th November, 1976 vide F.T.R. Nos. 583, 586 and 587. The same cases were, however, again registered vide F.I.R. Nos. 102, 103 and 104 on 21st June, 1977 by F.I.A., Lahore.
' The allegations against the petitioners are that they along with other co-accused defrauded United Bank Ltd., Faisalabad, an amount of Rs, 9,23,630.00 by committing forgeries opening fake bank accounts in the name of different persons, signing cl}eques and drawing huge amount deceitfully.
' The petitioners and one Masud Iqbal co-accused filed bail applications in the Court of Special Judge (Central). Lahore but the same were rejected by his order dated 1st February, 1979. The petitioners and the aforementioned Masud Iqbal, thereafter, filed petitions for bail, in the High Court but my learned brother G. M. Mirza, J., rejected those petitions vide his order dated 7th March, 1979 announced on 1st April, 1979. The main ground for dismissal of the petitions was that the investigation in the cases, was in progess and there were chances of the availability of more evidence. His Lordship, however, repelled the contention of the learned counsel, for the petitioners, regarding delay in the submission of challans and completion of investigation on the ground, that the same occurred due to the ascendance of Shahid Hamid Butt and Zahid Aziz co-accused.
2. Masud Iqbal, alone filed petitions for Special Leave to Appeal in the Supreme Court of Pakistan, seeking his release on bail. These petitions were converted into appeals by order dated 5th June, 1979 and the appellant (Masud lqbal) was released on bail in the sum of Rs, 1,00,000 with two sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Assistant Commissioner, Lahore. An extract of the relevant paragraph of the aforementioned order is reproduced below :- "He (learned counsel for the petitioner) submitted that the main evidence in this case consists of the report of the handwriting expert as to whether or not the writing on the allegedly forged documents was in the hand of the petitioner, but the said report has not yet been received. The learned State Counsel admitted that the said report of the handwriting expert has not yet been received and the only evidence against the petitioner is the oral testimony of two employees of the Bank to the effect that it was he who had opened the bank account and Used to draw the cheese.
We are inclined to agree with the learned counsel for the petitioner that a prima facie case could be, reasonably, said to have been made out against the petitioner only after the report of the handwriting expert, supporting the statements of the above-named two banks employees, is received."
3. After the release of Masud Iqbal co-accused on bail, the petitioners, moved six applications for bail, three each, and I propose to dispose of all these petitions by this order as common facts and Police reports are contained in these cases.
' Ijaz Ahmad petitioner moved Criminal Miscellaneous No, 1876/13/79, Criminal Miscellaneous No, 1877/B/79 and Criminal Miscellaneous No, 1878/B/79, while Tanveer Ahmad petitioner moved Criminal Miscellaneous No, 2040/B/79, Criminal Miscellaneous No, 2041/B/79 and 2042/B/79. The petitioners in the above-mentioned petitions have raised mainly two fresh grounds for consideration, and maintainability of these petitions, firstly, that the petitioners' cases are at par with Masud Iqbal co-accused who has been released on bail, ky the Supreme Court of Pakistan, vide order dated 5th June, 1979 and secondly that after the dismissal of their earlier bail applications on 1st April, 1979 the investigation has made no tangible progress, and has failed to submit complete or incomplete challan in the Court. Learned counsel for the petitioners has also strenuously argued at the bar, that the petitioners are in the judicial lock-up over 8 months ago and the trial of the cases does not appear to be in sight. He also stated that it would be against the interest of justice, if the petitioners are allowed to stay in jail for considerable time without being put on trial. He also submitted, that the cases in which the petitioners are involved pertained to settlement of accounts and the superior Courts of Pakistan have mostly released the accused on bail so as to afford them opportunity to settle the accounts. Mr. Aqeel Ahmad, Sub-Inspector, Federal Investigating Agency, the Investigating Officer present in Court has submitted, that Shahid Hamid Butt and Zahid Aziz co-accused who had absconded are still at large and that the investigation has been very much hampered on account of their ascendance. He however, admitted, that trial of these cases would take considerable time, as challahs in these cases have not been submitted as yet. He produced and placed on record a copy of the report of the handwriting expert dated 19th June, 1979. This report indicates that the specimen signatures of Ijaz Mahmud, have tallied with the disputed signatures on the documents. 1 he report also shows that the specimen signatures of Tanveer Ahmad accused do not tally with the questioned signatures on the documents.
4. Learned State counsel, has raised two points for consideration, firstly that these bail petitions are not maintainable, as, in fact, these are review petitions. He submitted that the order dated 1st April, 1979 passed by the High Court cannot be reviewed under the law, secondly he submitted that the petitioners in collaboration with co-accused have defrauded the Bank, a huge amount of money and for that reason they are not entitled to be released on bail ; particularly ; when the investigation in these cases has not been finalized.
The points raised by the learned State counsel have no force. The order passed disposing of bail applications is not a judgment within the meaning of section 369, Cr. P. C., so as, to operate as a bar against its alteration or review. Application for bail can certainly be repeated on fresh grounds.
As held in Amir-ud-Din v. The State (1) the Supreme Court of Pakistan observed that the application for bail can be reconsidered in exceptional circumstances in the exercise of inherent jurisdiction and to meet the ends of justice, even, in the absence of fresh material. This being the legal position the petitioners' applications are maintainable on fresh grounds as mentioned above. The second point of the learned State counsel for non-consideration of the bail applications was, that huge amount was embezzled. This by itself would be nolp ground for refusal of bail. Supreme Court of Pakistan in a case) reported as Ijaz Akhtar v. The State (2) has laid down, the principle that mere large amount embezzled by itself, would be no valid ground for refusal of bail. I overrule these objections, raised by the counsel appearing on behalf of the State and proceed to consider these petitions for bail on merits.
5. The case of Ijaz Mahmood petitioner as admitted by the State counsel, on instructions from the Investigating Officer and perusal of record, is no doubt identical with that of Masud lqbal co- accused who has already been released on bail by the Supreme Court of Pakistan, but the fact, remains that at the time of the consideration of his bail application by the Supreme Court, the report of the handwriting expert was not available and the lack of the report was considered an important point for releasing him on bail because at that time there was no other C material prima Jack connecting the accused with the commission of the offences alleged against him. The handwriting expert's report has since, been received in this Court which as stated earlier, signifies, that the specimen signatures of Ijaz Mahmood have tallied with the disputed signatures on the documents. This piece of evidence coupled with other material with the prosecution prima facie connects the petitioner Ijaz Mahmood with the commission of offences alleged against him. His, bail application is therefore, dismissed.
6. As regards Tanveer Ahmad petitioner, the report received shows as stated above, that his specimen signatures do not resemble with the questioned signatures on the documents and there being no other sufficient material with the prosecution even at this stage, to connect him with the commission of the offences alleged against him and further as D admitted by the Investigating Officer that even the challan of this case is not going to be submitted in near future and consequently the trial being not in sight he is entitled to be released on bail and I , provided he furnishes security, in the sum of Rs, 1,00,000 (Rupess one lac only) with two sureties in the like amount to the satis- _ faction of the Assistant Commissioner, Lahore.
(1) PI..D 1977 SC 602 (2) 1978 SCM R 64