' SYED SHABBAR RAZA RIZVI, J.---This order proposes to decide two bail applications (Criminal Miscellaneous Nos.4864 and 7520-B/2007) as petitioners in both are accused of F.I.R. No,45 dated 12-3-2007 under sections 408, 420, 468, 471 and 380 P.P.C. Registered with police station Ahmedpur Sial, District Jhang. Petitioners in both the petitions were refused post-arrest bail by the learned Judge, Special Court (Offences in Banks) Punjab, Lahore on 21-6-2007 whereas second bail application by Khalid Amir Khan petitioner in Criminal Miscellaneous No, 7520-B/07 was declined on 20-7-2007. They, thereafter, filed their separate applications before this Court for the same relief.
2. Charge against the petitioners as per complaint of Syed Hussain Raza, Chief Manager, Muslim Commercial Bank Limited, Shaheed Road Branch, Jhang, is that Messrs Bilal Waqar Rice and Cotton Factory availed finance facility against pledge of stock and mortgage of landed property from the complainant bank to the tune of Rs,20 million as cash finance and Rs,4 million as running finance., The pledged stock consisting of 13000 bags, each containing 100 kilograms super quality rice, was stored in a godown within the factory premises of the loanee firm. The pledged stock, besides being ensured, was given in watch and ward of Messrs Muqaddam Company, managed by Amir Abdullah Niazi and remained under surveillance of the employees/guards of Muqaddam Company and the loanees. It was further detailed in the F.I.R. That on account of failure of the loanees to .Pay off their liability, complainant-Bank got published proclamation for auction of pledged stock and it eventually revealed on 8-3-2007 that only 4000 bags of rice were available in the stock while rest were replaced with the bags of husk (Phak), leading to registration of case.
Muhammad Afzal Khan petitioner being managing partner of the loanee firm, was arrested on 30- 4-2007 whereas his brother/co-accused Khalid Amir Khan was arrested following recording of supplementary statement of the complainant dated 10-4-2007 and both of them after remaining on physical remand, have since been remitted to judicial lockup.
3. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have examined the police record. Though both the petitioners were found guilty by Zulfiqar S.-I/I.O. Yet on requisition of this Court, Zahid Mahmood D.I.-G. (Investigation), Faisalabad also inquired into the matter and certified the initial investigation done in the case and has also opined that both the petitioners along with their co- accused are guilty of the offences charged vide his report dated 10-10-2007. Submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the pledged stock was under the watch and ward of Messrs Muqaddam Company, whose Manager Amir Abdullah Niazi had stated that bags containing rice were already short at the time of pledge; petitioners were not responsible for loss occasioned to the bank and that there is no direct incriminating evidence connecting them with the offences charged, hence they were entitled to the concession of bail, have not impressed us to grant the relief prayed for multiple reasons. First reason being that the pledged stock was practically in the custody of the petitioners as the same was lying in the godown within their factory premises. The other reason is that prosecution has already collected documentary proof in form of 12 receipts of sale of rice by the petitioners, during the period when their factory was closed and they could not explain from where they got the rice sold by them. Prosecution has also collected evidence regarding purchase of husk (Phak) filled by the petitioners in 9000 bags in place of rice. They also could not furnish any reason for purchase of such a huge quantity of husk (Phak) from the market when they themselves were running factory, of the same trade. Investigating Officer has also added on 5-8-2007 offence under section 380 P.P.C. Against the petitioners, where after it hardly lies with the petitioners that offences charged are not made out. Muhammad Afzal Khan petitioner is partner of the loanee firm and is also mortgager/ pledger whereas his brother/co-accused Khalid Amir Khan is guarantor/mortgager and has signed the receipts showing sale of. Rice, as discussed above. Petitioners are involved in other criminal cases of cheating as they also faced F.I.R. No,199 dated 24-9-2007 under sections 420/408 P.P.C. Registered on the complaint of UBL.
Similarly, stance of the learned counsel for the petitioners that on account of removal of security/pledged stock offence under section 83-A of the Banking Companies Ordinance, 1962 would be attracted which is punishable with three years sentence, hence being bailable petitioners may be ordered to be released, has no worth in it because provisions of section 84 of this Ordinance, escaped notice of the learned counsel for the petitioners whereby indemnity was not extended to offence under section 83-A. All the offences against the petitioners are mentioned in the schedule attached with the Offences in A Respect of Banks (Special Courts) Ordinance, 1984, provisions of which have the overriding effect, by virtue of its section 12 and section 5 of the said Ordinance makes those offences non-bailable. Petitioners are prima facie connected with the commission of heinous scheduled offences. Filing of the suits by the parties for recovery of finance availed by the petitioners and that for rendition of accounts, not negatively reflect on initiation A of criminal prosecution which could continue in view of judgment by the Apex Court in the case of Haji Sardar Khalid Saleem v. Muhammad Ashraf and others (2006 SCM R 1192). The trial court has already taken cognizance of the challan which is ripe for trial/decision and at this juncture petitioners are not entitled to-the concession of bail.
4. For the reasons noted above, no case for grant of bail of both the petitioners is made out and consequently their respective titled petitions, being devoid of any merit, are dismissed. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.