' HASNAT AHMAD KHAN, J.---Through this petition Imran-ul-Haq Hassan Saeed has sought post- arrest bail in case F.I.R. No, 14, dated 31-8-2006 registered at Police Station A.C.E. Toba Tek Singh in respect of offences under sections 420, 468, 471, 409, P.P.C. Read with section 5 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947.
2. Shorn of unnecessary details the prosecution case, as narrated in the F.I.R. Lodged at the instance of Tariq Dar, Zonal Chief Punjab Provincial Co-operative Bank Limited, is that Aamar Shahzad, cashier of Punjab Provincial Co-operative Bank Limited, Pir Mahal Branch Tehsil Kamalia did not return to his duty on 13-7-2006 while keys of the safe were with him. On receipt of said information Head office of said Bank constituted a team on 14-7-2006 to inspect the safe and other accounts of the bank. Said Committee unlocked the safe upon which it transpired that cash of Rs,4,98,000 was short in the safe. On a secret inquiry it wasrevealed that Aamar Shahzad along with Imran-ul-Haq Hassan Saeed (petitioner), Khurshid Jafferi, Abdul Majeed and others had taken awry the surplus amount of the Branch on different dates to deposit the same in the Branch of National Bank of Pakistan to obtain bank drafts. It was further revealed that no such bank drafts were either-issued by the-National Bank of Pakistan and photo copies of Bank drafts were placed by Aamar Shehzad on the record of the bank with the connivance of Manager as well as Imran-ul- Haq Hassan Saeed. It was further alleged in the F.I.R. That a sum of Rs,30,01,500 was mis- appropriated by all the accused. It was further stated in the F.I.R. That Khurshid Ahmad Jafferi Manager and Aamar Shehzad, Cashier were joint custodian of cash while Khurshid Ahmad Jafferi (Manager) and Imran-ul-Haq Hasan Saeed (IInd officer) petitioners were responsible for checking and supervision of bank vouchers but they had failed to perform their duties and caused a loss of Rs,35,04,500 to the bank.
' The petitioner applied for bail before arrest before Special Judge Anti-Corruption, Faisalabad Division Faisalabad which was refused to him vide order, dated 2-4-2007 which compelled him to file the similar application (Criminal Miscellaneous No,458-B of 2007) before this Court which however, was also dismissed vide order, dated 9-3-2007 passed by my learned brother Sh. Javed Sarfraz, J. Who is not presently available at the Principal Seat. Consequently on 9-3-2007 the petitioner was arrested. After initial investigation he was sent to judicial lock-up whereafter he filed an application for post-arrest bail which was dismissed by the learned trial Court vide order, dated 2-4-2007 on the ground that on the basis of same material High Court had already refused pre- arrest bail to the petitioner. Hence this petition.
3. In support of this application learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that dismissal of previous bail application by this Court would not debar the petitioner from seeking post-arrest bail on merits as there is lot of difference between the grant of pre-arrest bail and after arrest bail.
4. On merits the learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that during the physical remand obtained by the police nothing was recovered from the petitioner; that departmental inquiry has already been concluded and the competent authority has recommended for reinstating the petitioner vide order, dated 7th of March, 2007; that during the course of investigation the petitioner has been found guilty of only contributory negligence; that the prosecution is not armed with any direct evidence against the petitioner; that there is no allegation of misappropriation or embezzlement of any amount against the petitioner; that as per duty roster the petitioner was not assigned the role of handling the cash and only role assigned to him was that of dealing with all types of loan/finances, preparation of all kinds of loan balance Books andcomputer operation; that the petitioner had only signed two vouchers in the amount of Rs,2,80,000 and 3,75,000 respectively in a routing matter; that while referring to a document attached with this petition at page 25 learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that audit team had opined that the embezlement have been committed only by the Bank Manager and Cashier, whereas other staff members including the petitioner were found to be guilty of failure to perform their duties vigilantly; that the bank has filed petition under section 54 of the Cooperative Societies Act before the Registrar Co-operative Societies Bank Punjab whereby a decree to the tune of Rs,35,04,500 with mark-up has been prayed as against all the staff members including the petitioner. On the basis of said petition learned counsel for the petitioner has contended A that it has become a civil dispute which can only be resolved by the above-mentioned Registrar and that a case of further inquiry into the guilt of the petitioner has been made out. He maintains that as the case is based upon the documentary evidence the petitioner is entitled to bail for having an opportunity to assist his counsel during the trial by making reference to the certain documents. He further maintains that the petitioner being an employee of the bank there is no chance of his ascendance. In the last learned counsel for the petitioner has made an offer that admittedly only two vouchers in the amount of Rs,6,55,000 bore the signatures of the petitioner, he is ready to furnish security or executing mortgage deed in favor of the bank to compensate the same in case an award is given against him by the Registrar before whom the above mentioned application filed by the Bank is pending.
4-A. Though learned Deputy Prosecutor-General has opposed the bail application on merits yet he has not opposed the offer made by the learned counsel for the petitioner. Wajid Ali, C.O./ACE has not refuted the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has only signed above mentioned two vouchers.
5. The aforementioned contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner have been found to be weighty.
6. Be that as it may, in the peculiar circumstances of the case thispetition is accepted subject to the condition that either the petitioner or somebody on his behalf would mortgage any immovable property valuing not less than an amount of Rs,7,00,000 (rupees seven lacs.) in favor of Punjab Provincial Co-operative Bank Limited Faisalabad Zone to secure the ultimate interest of the Bank.
Subject to the execution of mortgage deed in the aforementioned terms to the satisfaction of the above mentioned bank and furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs,5,00,000 (Rupees five lacs only) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court the petitioner shall be released on bail.