' ABDUL AZIZ KUNDI, J.--- On the basis of letter dated 23-4-2009 by Javed Iqbal, Manager, Allied Bank Ltd, the Mall Branch, Abbottabad complaining that he has received a complaint from one Shahid Butt maintaining Account No,01-200-0512-7 Allied Bank Ltd, Rawlakot Branch, Azad Kashmir complaining that he had issued a Cheque No,8632838 in favour of Raja Nadeem Ahmad for Rs,1,50,000(sic) who has withdrawn an amount of Rs,5,90,000 through some of the officials responsible but in spite of that none was associated as an accused with the present case; that expert opinion was obtained by comparing writing on the cheques, Account Opening Form and Specimen Signature Card in the Bank with those of Specimen Signature and handwriting of accused Raja Nadeem Ahmad and that the examiner of questioned documents FIA Headquarters Islamabad after carrying out the necessary test answered the query that the questioned signature/writing do not tally with the corresponding specimen signatures/writings of Raja Nadeem Ahmad. The learned counsel lastly contended that Shahid Butt who claimed to have been deprived of Rs,5,90,000 through withdrawal from his account as against a cheque of Rs,150 has recorded his written statement on 3-12-2009 to the Investigating Officer where he has totally exonerated the accused/petitioner and instead named one Saleem without further details to whom he had issued the alleged cheque for Rs,1,50. Accordingly, it was argued that the accused/petitioner's case is one of further inquiry and thus be allowed bail.
5. As against that Mr. Fazal Karim Khan, Advocate, representing the bank argued that the account was opened in the name of the accused/petitioner on 2-2-2009 and that in view of the policy issued by the State Bank of Pakistan, since 2007 there was no need to have any introducer for opening an account and that the customer was to be introduced by his CNIC through direct verification from NADRA; that the new Identity Card after the alleged loss of earlier-one was issued to the accused/petitioner on 30-1-2006 while the report to police and publication in Newspaper is dated June, 2006; that after opening of an account, the bank as a routine sends a letter of thanks to the customer on his address as given in the opening form; that even in response to that letter, accused/petitioner had not raised any objection with regard to the account in question; that in departmental inquiry, one Ali Ehtisham was found guilty and also removed from service as it was found that the said official had opened the account being on the relevant duty at the relevant time.
It was also argued that under section 5 subsection (6) of the (Offences in respect of Banks)
Ordinance, 1984 (Ordinance No,IX of 1984) an accused shall not be released on bail, if there appears reasonable grounds that he is connected with the offence. Further that for the purposes of special enactment, the sentences prescribed under sections 468 and 471, P.P.C. Have been modified, thus bringing the same into prohibition like the one as contained under section 497, Cr.P.C.
6. Mr. Muhammad Ishaq Shah, Advocate, representing the State supported the learned counsel for the bank and further added that the address of the accused/petitioner as given in his Identity Card is also incorrect which would suggest that accused/petitioner is a habitual offender and for that reason he has given his wrong address in his Identity Card. He placed reliance on a judgment dated 31-3-2009 passed by august Supreme Court in Criminal Petitions Nos.320 and 421 of 2008 and contended that bail petition be dismissed.
7. I have considered the respective submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and also gone through the record. On the basis of complaint received from Shahid Eutt, Javed Iqbal, Manager of the Bank had charged accused/petitioner for withdrawing a sum of Rs,5,90,000 from the account of Shahid Butt through "on line" facility and credited into the account in the name of accused/petitioner in a Branch of the Allied Bank, The Mall, Abbottabad. The accused/petitioner has totally denied his opening of the said account or association in any manner with the same. The Account Opening Pro forma would show that many formalities, the fulfilment of which were necessary for opening of an account have been overlooked in the case of said Account, for instance the relevant column pertaining to introducer left totally blank and similarly as against requirement of deposit of Rs,1000 as initial deposit at the time of opening of account a sum of Rs,500 has been shown as initial deposit in the instant case. Moreover, without the active connivance of bank officials, the account could not have been opened and operated. In spite of the fact and as stated by learned counsel for the bank that one Ali Ehtesham, an official of the bank was found involved in this entire affair and removed from service but has not been made as an accused in this case. In his inquiry report, the Inspecting Executive has also held as under:--- "Summary of Miscellaneous Lapses/shortcomings.
(1) W.H. Tax recoverable Rs,1770 on cash withdrawal of Rs,590,000 from PLSSB Account No,9958-3 was ignored Amount of Rs 155 was recovered from the same available balance and amount Rs,1615 went in arrears in violation of Circular No,P/INST/2005/103 dated 11-7-2005.
(2) While opening account in the name of Applicant Nadeem Ahmad, his local whereabouts were not recorded as the applicant was settled in Islamabad and his permanent address was of Tehsil Murree District, Rawalpindi.
(3) ATM card delivered but acknowledge signatures in ATM register not tallied with SS card/Application.
(4) Depositor signature not obtained on deposit slip of initial deposit amount Rs,500 dated 2-2- 2009 A/C 9958-3 Raja Nadeem Ahmad".
' It is further states; "Fixation of Responsibility.
(1) Staff responsible for some of lapses is reported earlier in this report under Miscellaneous Lapses.
(2) Fixation of responsibility for the alleged act of payment of cheque with tampered amount is not seemed justified at present stage, as the cheque in question did not contain any apparent alteration on the date of payment. However, now sufficiently proved, altered as per present condition of the cheque.
(3) Mr. Ali Ehtisham, the then CSM & Mr. Javed Iqbal, BM may be held responsible if statement of Raja Nadeem Ahmad is proved true at any later stage on appropriate interrogation/investigation.
However, onus of proving identity of Raja Nadeem Ahmad lies with them as genuineness of documentation completed by them for opening account has been challenged by respective person.
(4) Staff dealing online transaction of B/O Pine View Road Abbottabad is responsible for unauthorized balance enquiry and disclosure of balance of person/persons other than A/C Holder and without any genuine request. Two officers named Haji Muhammad Farid and Ali Ehtisham were concerned and anyone of them may have committed the said act. It is still to be identified that in whose ID the B/O Rawlakot was accessed at reported times for balance enquiry to fix responsibility.
IT group on consultation may identify the same."
8. Additionally, the statement of Shahid Butt from whose account the amount in question was withdrawn and credited to the account in the name of the accused/petitioner at Abbottabad has totally exonerated the accused/petitioner and instead involved one Saleem without his detailed particulars.
9. The case of accused/petitioner becomes one of further inquiry and trial against him is not insight in the near future, therefore, he cannot be kept behind the bar for indefinite period. The judgment relied upon by the learned State Counsel is not attached to the facts of the present case.
10. Consequently, while allowing this petition, the accused/ petitioner be released on bail, if he furnishes bail bonds in the sum of Rs,5,00,000 (rupees five lacs) with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of trial Judge, who should ensure that sureties are local, reliable and men of means. Any finding given in this judgment shall not prejudice either side during trial.