1. ' RAFIULLAH SULTANI, J.--- This is an application for granting of bail of the petitioner under sections 109/409, 419/420, 468/471, A.P.C. Along with sections 10/11, 5(2), P.C. Ehtesab Bureau Act, 2001 against the judgment of Ehtesab Court, Mirpur dated 11-6-2008, whereby the bail was refused.
2. ' Brief facts of the case are that F.I.Rs, No,12 of 2002 and 13 of 2002 were registered against petitioner by P.I.A. C.B.C. At Police Station Islamabad Street No,43, G/10, Islamabad on the information of Area Manager U.B.L. Dudyal, Azad Kashmir on 16-10-2002 and 17-10-2002 respectively. The allegation against the petitioner as alleged in F.I.Rs, is that while holding the post of Manager in U.B.L. Branches in Tehsil Dudyal committed the criminal acts of misappropriation and embezzlement of amount of account-holders.
3. ' It is further alleged that while he was posted as Manager in Chattroh Branch on 19-2-1998, a new cheque book was issued by the accused/petitioner fictitiously in the name of Muhammad Sabir without following legal procedure and the said cheque book was utilized by petitioner fraudulently to withdraw amounts with forged signature from different accounts on different dates. An amount of Rs,35,66,949 out of the total embezzled amount of Rs,58,46,909 detected so far has been recovered from the accused through the efforts of the Area Manager and Area Operation Manager, Central Branch Dudyal Azad Kashmir. The accused has been utilized the public money unauthorizedly for his personal use as well as deprived the account holders of the Bank from their money and profits on their saving. All other facts and information. Relating to the matter will be stated in the statement under section 161 of Cr.P.C. The case was transferred to branch of NAB Rawalpindi, after that the case was transferred to Azad Jammu and Kashmir Ehtesab Bureau vide letter No,1/(16)/Coord/NAB2007/619, dated 19-3-2007. The petitioner/accused was arrested by Ehtesab Bureau Azad Kashmir and after that the application for grant of bail on behalf of petitioner/accused was moved before the learned Judge, Ehtesab Court, Mirpur on 5-6-2008. Who rejected the said bail application vide order, dated 13-6-2008, hence this application.
4. ' The learned counsel for the petitioner pressed the bail application on the following grounds:---
(1) That petitioner is respectable and dignified citizen of this country and has functioned as Manager in different Branches of U.B.L. In Tehsil Dudyal and retired on 31-5-2001.
(2) That the said F.I.Rs, have been registered without lawful authority and without there territorial jurisdiction.
(3) That the said cases have been registered with mala fide intentions with intend to harass the petitioner.
(4) That the petitioner has not committed any illegal act during his tenure of service while he was functioning as Manager of U.B.L. In Branches Chathroh and Potha.
(5) That the petitioner is innocent and no departmental inquiry has been conducted by the Bank authorities.
(6) That the Bank authorities issued N.O.C. To petitioner at the time of his retirement on 31-5-2001, which shows that there was nothing perverse against him.
(7) That the petitioner has filed writ petition before this Court challenging the validity of the cases in question in the bail application.
(8) That the Judge, Ehtesab Court, Mirpur fell in error to reject the bail application of petitioner.
(9) That the bail cannot be withheld as punishment and petitioner is entitled to grant of bail.
(10) That the above-mentioned offences do not fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497 of Cr.P.C.
(11) That the aggrieved account-holders do not initiated any proceeding before any appropriate forum against petitioner. The learned Deputy Chief Prosecutor for the Ehtesab Bureau raised the following grounds:---
(1) That the petitioner is specifically nominated in F.I.R.
(2) That the petitioner has committed above-mentioned offences, which fall in prohibitory clause of section 497 of Cr.P.C.
(3) That amount of Rs,35,66,949 out of the total embezzled amount of Rs,58,46,909 detected so far has been recovered from the accused during investigation.
(4) That the petitioner is fully implicated in the above-mentioned offences by the investigation of Ehtesab Bureau.
(5) That the learned Ehtesab Court has jurisdiction regarding the said cases.
(6) That the petitioner cannot claim concession of bail as matter of right.
(7) In support of his version, he cited following case-law:--- 2004 PCr.LJ 148, 2001 PCr.LJ 986, 2001 PCr.LJ 1819, PLD 1987 SC 545, 2002 M LD 1311 and 2002 M LD 1344.
5. ' I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the available record of the case carefully.
6. ' The perusal of record shows that the petitioner remained in service of U.B.L. As Bank Manager till 31-5-2001 and he obtained Golden Handshake Scheme from his service on the said date. The allegations against petitioner are misappropriation and embezzlement of amount of Rs,58,46,909 at the time of posting in Branches Chathroh and Potha Tehsil Dudyal, District Mirpur. An amount of Rs,35,66,949 out of the total embezzled amount of Rs,58,46,909 has been recovered from the petitioner/accused during investigation of Reference No,341, dated 17-7-2007. The above- mentioned Branches are one man branch and the petitioner fraudulently debited the accounts, which are mentioned in the F.I.Rs, No,12 of 2002 and 13 of 2002 and utilizing the public money for his own use and depriving the account-holders from their profits on their saving. The delay per se in lodging the report is no ground for grant of bail in each and every case because every case is to be decided on its peculiar facts and circumstances. The points raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner touches the merits of the case and the same cannot be decided at the bail stage. It is well-settled principle of law that for the purpose of bail only tentative assessment could be made and detailed assessm ent/evaluation of evidence is always deprecated by the superior courts. It was held in case titled Mst. Maqsood Begum v. Sarfraz alias Paloo and 3 others reported in 2004 SCR 91=2004 PCr.LJ 148 which reads as under:--- "(a) Bail--- ----At bail stage prosecution evidence is not to be appreciated in minute detail---Only tentative assessm ent of evidence is permissible at the stage of bail---If the prosecution version remains unrebutted at the stage of bail it has to be delivered as such."
7. The version of the learned counsel for the petitioner that offences under the F.I.Rs, in question do not fall in prohibitory clause of section 497 of Cr.P.C. Is no ground for grant of bail. It is not a universally accepted rule of law that in each and every case, which is not punishable with death, imprisonment for life or ten years, bail must be granted. There is no denial regarding this matter that petitioner was not posted in the Branches of U.B.L. Chattroh and Potha in 1997 and 1998. There is also no rebuttal regarding this matter that fictitious cheque books were not issued by the petitioner while he was posted at said branches as Manager and the said branches were not one man branches. The material collected by the prosecution had prima facie connected the petitioner with the offences allegedly committed by him. There is no rebuttal on the record regarding this matter that embezzled amount had not been recovered from accused. The petitioner is prima facie fully implicated in the above-mentioned offences during the course of investigation of Ehtesab Bureau (AJ&K). It was held in case titled Jamilan A. Durrani v. The State reported 2002 M LD 1344, which reads as under:--- "(a) Criminal Procedure Code--- ----S. 497---National Accountability Bureau Ordinance (XVIII of 1999), Ss.9/10---Bail in NAB cases- --Bail can be granted in cases under the National Accountability Bureau Ordinance, 1999, but only in appropriate cases where the Court comes to the conclusion that there is no reasonable ground to believe that the accused has committed the alleged offence."
8. ' The above-mentioned situation is not available in case in hand. There is another aspect of this case, which cannot be overlooked that petitioner was the Bank Manager and was the trustee of amount of account-holders. He was not there to doll the same in this manner for his personal use.
9. The concept of accountability is very poorly applied in this country and that too was never brought to its logical conclusion. This mode of accountability has given tendency to grab public property and squandering of public money. It was held in case titled Pervaiz Iqbal and others v. The State reported 1995 PCr.LJ 430, which reads as under:--- "Looked the case from another angle judicial notices can be taken of the events that in the society tendency to grab public property and squandering of public funds has increased to a cancerous magnitude. It is high time, therefore, that the grabbers of public property and squanderers of public funds are dealt with an iron hand. It is hence duty of all the organs of the State including the judiciary that while dealing with such-like cases particularly in exercise of discretionary jurisdiction the volume and extent of injury to the society both materially and to the moral fibre thereof, is also kept in view. A person who grabs the public property and squanders public funds commits a very heinous crime which .... An offence committed by a murderer who murders an individual, whereas a grabber and the squanderer kills the whole society."
10. The tentative assessm ent of the material collected by the prosecution brings me to the conclusion that there are reasonable grounds available to believe that petitioner is fully implicated in the embezzlement of Rs,58,46,909 from the branches of United Bank Ltd. Chattroh and Potha Tehsil Dudyal for issuing fictitious cheque books through bogus signatures by him.
11. ' In view of above, I have no reason to differ with the impugned judgment, which was made by the learned Judge, Ehtesab Court, Mirpur dated 13-6-2008. The bail application of the petitioner is hereby dismissed. However, the observations made hereinabove on the merits of the case are purely tentative and the trial Court will not be influenced by them in any manner whatsoever. The trial Court will consider the case purely upon independent assessment of material, uninfluenced by whatever is stated above. However, the petitioner is at liberty to move fresh bail application before the trial Court after presentation of reference.