' SYED MAHMOOD ALAM RIZVI, J.--- This order will dispose of the above two Bail Applications as they arise out of the same F.I.R. The applicants have impugned the order of the learned Special Court (Offences in respect of Banks) Sindh at Karachi declining bail to the applicants namely Muhammad Sikandar Mughal and Syed Muhammad Asim in Case No,3 of 2008 vide orders dated 28-2-2008 and 13-3-2008 respectively.
2. Precisely, the facts of the case are that after due deliberation and negotiation, the bank agreed to sanction the finance amount to the tune of Rs,10.12 million to accused applicant Sikandar Mughal, whereafter he provided the documents of the house to the bank and the above mentioned amount was paid through a Pay-order No,0022597 dated 29-6-2007 to accused applicant. On having received the mentioned documents that bank got the same verified from the concerned Mukhtiarkar office in Malir, who declared the same as fictitious. Since the documents were declared as fictitious/forged, the bank conducted its preliminary inquiry into the matter which resulted in a pre-planned conspiracy hatched by Syed Muhammad Asim, Muhammad Arif and Sikandar Mughal, who having their common objectives and intention wilfully and deliberately used forged and fictitious documents before the bank, by declaring the same as genuine. The accused persons have thus caused a substantial loss to the bank to the tune of Rs,10.12 million.
3. That the accused applicant Syed Muhammad Asim holder of C.N.I.C. No,42101-0226688-5, masterminded the whole fraud and was the introducer between the buyer and the seller. His share in the defrauded amount was Rs,3.9 million. Muhammad Sikandar Mughal holder of C.N.I.C.
No,42201-6009009-3, was the buyer of the forged property. His share in the defrauded amount was Rs,5.00 million. Muhammad Arif holder of C.N.I.C: No,42101-9036905-5, was the fake owner/seller of the property. His share in the defrauded amount was Rs,1.00 million.
4. The learned counsel for the applicant Muhammad Sikandar Mughal has contended that the applicant is a bona fide purchaser of the property and he is innocent, and has not committed any offence as he had no knowledge that the documents of the property in question were forged. That no evidence is available to connect the applicant regarding the fabrication of the documents.
Further, the accused applicant has not been connected with the co-accused and the entire crime has been committed by the bank officials, who have failed to discharge their duties regarding the verification of the documents of the property. That against the loan facility of Rs,10.12 million the accused / applicant has already returned a sum of Rs,3,644,298 and not only this but had paid the instalments as well. Per bank statement he has paid the instalments regularly from 1-7-2007 to 1- 12-2007 upto Rs,6,44,298 which shows his bona fide as such, he is entitled for bail.
5. The learned Advocates for the applicant Muhammad Asim have contended that the accused/applicant is innocent and he has no concern with the case and no allegation has been mentioned in the F.I.R. Against the applicant Syed Muhammad Asim. They further contended that neither the applicant submitted the alleged documents with the complainant bank nor obtained any loan, hence no case is made out against the applicant, while, in fact, the role of the applicant is only that of an introducer between the buyer and seller and this is the duty of the purchaser to get the documents verified from the concerned department before entering into the same transaction.
That no other connection is available against the applicant with the other co-accused.
6. On the other hand, the learned D.A.-G. Vigorously opposed the bail applications of the applicants on the ground that this is an organized crime and every person has committed his specific role as single person cannot commit such a crime and, prima facie, the concerned officials of the bank are also involved and the Investigating Officer had to conduct the investigation against those officials and that he has taken the step and already directed the Investigating Officer to further probe into the matter as only interim charge-sheet has been submitted vide order dated 4-2-2008 and the investigation is still in progress regarding the involvement of the bank officials, etc. He further contended that connivance is apparent as in such cases the cheaters / swindlers used to pay some amount in shape of instalments to save their skin for considerable time, otherwise in failure of payment of first instalment, the matter could be detected at the earlier stage. He further contended that the amount has been transferred in the account of applicant/accused Muhammad Sikandar Mughal and some of the shares were deposited in the account of Muhammad Asim from the account of Muhammad Sikandar Mughal. On query, Mr. Ghulam Nabi Shaikh referred to the bank statement of accused Muhammad Asim and accepted the said entry of such a huge amount which had been deposited in the account of his client, but that related to some other business of his, and not to this case, but he failed to justify as to how such a huge amount had been transferred to the account of his client. He further contended that this is a white- collar crime and the applicants do not deserve any leniency and their bail should be dismissed. He further contended that the applicants are not entitled to bail, and even the offence does not fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C. He relied upon the cases reported as Afzaal Ahmed v. State 2003 SCM R 573, Muhammad Siddique v. Imtiaz Begum 2002 SCM R 442 Abdul Waheed v. State 2004 SCM R 319, Mehrban Ali v. State 2004 SCM R 229 and Imtiaz Ahmed v. State PLD 1997 SC 545.
7. We have heard all the lawyers, learned D.A.-G. And perused the record.
8. It is an admitted position that the accused Muhammad Sikandar Mughal availed the loan facility from the bank to the tune of Rs,10.12 million but provided fictitious/forged documents to the bank and obviously, it was in connivance with the co-accused and certain bank officials or officers and further, just to save their skins the applicants/ accused also deposited at least six instalments of a meagre amount, the Investigating Officer has collected the documentary evidence to show that the culprits/co-accused have distributed the amount i.e. Rs,5.00 million to accused Muhammad Sikandar Mughal, Rs,3.90 million to accused Muhammad Asim, and Rs,1.00 million to accused Muhammad Arif, and the bank statement further corroborated the above allegation.
' In the case of Maqsoom Hussain Shah v. State 2007 PCr.LJ 171 it has been held as under:--- "Bail, refusal of" Accused along with his co-accused, who was his close relative, had deprived complainant from Rs,6,00,000 by showing him a plot which was not owned and possessed by his co-accused and by so doing had committed fraud----Offences for which accused was being charged though did not fall under prohibition clause of section 497, Cr.P.C. But as accused had deprived an innocent person from his life long earning he did not deserve any discretionary relief-- -Challan had been submitted in the Court against accused---Trial Court, however, was directed to conclude the trial expeditiously."
' In the case of Sher Dil Khoso v. State 2000 PCr.LJ 1748 it has been held as under:-- "Bail, grant of" Huge amount was drawn by unknown persons through forged cheque from the Bank---Certain offences alleged against accused were not bailable---Accused, prima facie appeared to be involved in said offences as Bank Officers, who were well-skilled in marking differences between forged signatures and original one overlooked the, forged signatures--F.I.R.
Though was registered after lapse of more than eight months, but ground of delay in recording of F.I.R. Was not always to be resolved against prosecution for the purpose of bail---Circumstances having clearly made out a prima facie case against accused, bail could not be allowed."
' In the case of Mehrban Ali v. State 2004 SCM R 229 it has been held as under:-- "Sections 420/467/468/471---Constitution of Pakistan 1973, Article 185(3)---Bail---Serious allegations of fraud, forgery and extortion had been levelled against the accused which were not without substance---Complainant had been allegedly deprived from immovable property worth lacs of rupees on the basis of forgery and fake documents allegedly prepared by the accused--- Power of attorney executed by the complainant in favour of accused had been withdrawn for certain obvious reasons---Prima facie, a case against the accused had been made out--- Impugned order passed by High Court cancelling the bail granted to accused by the sessions Court did not call for any interference---Leave to appeal was refused to accused in circumstances and bail was declined to him accordingly."
9. This is a white-collar crime and in the'above circumstances, the applicants are, prima facie, involved in the above case, hence they are not entitled to be enlarged on bail. We, therefore, rejected the above bail applications. The same may be repeated after examination of the material witnesses, if advised.