1. ' KHAWAJA NAVEED AHMED, J---Case F.I.R. No,3/2007 under sections 420, 468, 421, 109, P.P.C. Was registered by FIA Crime Circle on 21-2-2007 on the complaint lodged by one Syed Mohsin Asghar who had stated that he had given the cheque of Rs,6900 to Syed Asad Imam an employee of Muslim Commercial Bank towards the instalment of the vehicle. Said ' Syed Asad Imam had fraudulently tampered the amount as Rs,469,000 and date was also tampered from 5-12-2006 to 5-8-2006. It is further alleged that he has forged the signature of the complainant. On 9-8-2006 Syed Asad Imam with criminal and common intention of his sister Ms..
2. Talat Fatima deposited the tampered cheque in the Allied Bank Ltd, Aga Khan University Branch, Karachi in her Account No,08112-1 and had subsequently the said Ms. Talat Fatima herself visited the bank branch and had withdrawn the entire amount under her own signature. In this case final charge sheet No,45-A was submitted on 12-12-2007 in Court of Special Judge (Offences in Banks) at Karachi and in Col. No,2 of the challan name of Kamran Ahmed Qureshi the present applicant appeared as absconder.
3. ' It has been stated by -the I.O. That in the interim charge sheet name of Kamran Ahmed Qureshi was not mentioned. The Main accused Syed Asad Imam and his sister Ms. Talat Fatima have already been granted bail by the trial Court. On inquiry from applicant Kamran Ahmed Qureshi he has stated that he only refers loan cases to the Bank and once a person takes loan from the Bank he is given commission by the Bank amounting to Rs,8100 per case. He states that in the present case he had referred to one Ayaz Ahmed for loan who is father of his friend Faraz Ahmed and he was paid Rs, 8100 as commission by the Bank, but the pay order of some other account was given to him instead of the pay order of Ayaz Ahmed. Kamran Ahmed Qureshi has stated that a pay order No,87 was issued to him, while in fact the pay order No,117 should have been issued to him, however, the amount of both the pay orders was the same as it pertains to the commission for referring the loan cases to the Bank.
4. ' Mr. Rizwan Ahmed Siddiqui learned DAG is present along with I.0 and the Assistant Director (Legal).
5. He states that it is bail before arrest application and grounds for pre-arrest bail are different from the grounds of after arrest bail. However, we have inquired from the I.O. Whether he needs the custody of the accused or not. He has not satisfactorily replied to the query made by the Court. The trial Court is vacant and there is no link Court appointed to entertain the cases of the trial Court therefore, the applicant has directly approached to this Court for pre-arrest bail. This Court had already entertained this bail application and vide order dated 18-12-2007 the Division Bench of this Court was pleased to grant interim bail to the applicant/accused. The applicant has already submitted surety in the sum of Rs,200,000 with the Nazir of this Court.
6. ' We have perused the record and heard the applicant in person as well as the learned D.A..-G. For the State. Name of applicant is neither mentioned in the F.I.R. Nor in the interim charge sheet. His role is limited for referring one Ayaz Ahmed for obtaining loan for the vehicle and the amount of commission involved is only Rs,8,100.
7. ' Keeping in view the facts of the case we are of the considered opinion that it is a fit case where bail should be confirmed. The applicant Kamran Ahmed Qureshi is on interim bail, his bail is confirmed on the same terms and conditions as were laid down in the interim order dated 8-12- 2007.
8. ' The above observations made by this Court are tentative in nature and trial Court should not be influenced by the same. The trial Court should decide the case on merits according to the evidence produced before the Court.
9. Bail is confirmed.