' MUHAMMAD ATHAR SAEED, J.---This bail application has been filed by the applicant against the order of the learned Special Court (Offence in Banks) Sindh at Karachi whereby the bail application of the applicant was dismissed.
2. Brief facts of the prosecution case as contained in the F.I.R. Are that in the year 2002 the accused Tariq Hashmi was posted as Head of Consumer Finance Car. Ijara with Dawood Islamic Bank Ltd. Sir Syed Road Branch Karachi. The accused in connivance with his associates namely Toufeeq Jaliawala the then Manager Car Sales, Syed Taha All Private person and others had cheated and defrauded the Bank by managing fake and fabricated documents and succeeded in getting financial facilities approved by the competent authority of the bank on the basis of such fake and fabricated documents. The leading was in respect of four vehicles two Toyota Corolla 2.0D and one Honda Civic VTI Oriel (Prismatic) in the name of customers (1) Muhammad Aslam Khan son of Abdul Haleem Khan, (2) Muhammad Hussain son of Muhammad Shafi, (3) Mustafa Hyder son of Syed Noman Poonwala and (4) Afzal Ali son of Muhammad Ejaz. It is further case of the prosecution that the accused persons in collusion with each other also managed fake bank statements, registration/plate numbers of the vehicles and caused substantial loss to the Bank aggregating to Rs,61,12,000 and the above accused persons were charged for commission of offences of criminal breach of trust, fraud and forgery punishable under sections 408/420/468/471/477-A/ 109/34, P.P.C.
And in pursuance of such F.I.R. The applicant accused was arrested on 26-6-2009 by the F.I.A. On 11-7-2009, the applicant accused filed a bail application before the learned Special Court (Offences in Banks) at Karachi who vide impugned order dated 14th July, 2009 rejected the bail application. Hence this application.
3. We have heard Mr. Mahmood A. Qureshi learned counsel for the applicant and Mr. Irfan Haroon Advocate for complainant and the learned D.A.G. For the State.
4. Mr. Mahmood A. Qureshi learned counsel for the applicant argued that the applicant is an innocent person and has falsely been implicated in the crime. He argued that the applicant was not the only responsible officer to verify and proceed with the alleged cases of leasing. He argued that the alleged cases of leasing were checked and verified by Taufiq Jaliawala the Manager Car Sale Ijarah and he himself verified each and every document including inquiry report submitted by Syed Abbas Hussain and Mansoor Alam both Relationship Officers Car Ijarah of the Bank. He argued that besides the applicant two other officials namely Mr. Murad Usmani Head of Retail Banking and Mr. Syed Rashid Rehman Group Head Corporation and Retail also recommended the alleged cases for leasing and so also Mr. Sohail Anwar Head of Credit and Mr. Schwarz CEO approved the alleged cases.
5. He argued that the alleged offences do not fall under prohibitory clause of section 497(1), Cr.P.C.
And further inquiry is needed to connect the applicant with the commission of offence and, therefore, the applicant is entitled to bail.
6. The learned counsel for complainant strongly opposed the bail application and argued that the applicant/accused was the Head of Consumer Finance and therefore directly responsible for the grant of Car Ijarah finance facilities. He had connived with the accused Taufiq Jaliawala and had introduced customers for Car Ijarah without the knowledge of the customers, who when contacted divulged that they had never applied for such facilities and their names were unauthorizedly used.
Father of one of the customers went to the extent of stating that his son who has been declared as one of the customers had been living in Australia during this entire period.
7. Another charge against the applicant was that he had forged CIB report (Customers Credit Information Report) issued by the State Bank of Pakistan and had on the basis of such report provided Ijarah finance to high-risk applicants, who otherwise were not qualified for such financing.
' The learned Deputy Prosecutor-General NAB also relied on the statement of Bank Officer Mr. Mansoor Alam who in his statement has alleged that his signature on the file of one customer Mustafa Hyder is forged and fake which according to him must have been made by Taufique Jaliawala or Tariq Hashmi. He also relied on the statement of another bank officer Syed Abbas who stated that he did what was instructed to him by Taufique Jaliawala.
9. We have examined the bail application in the light of the arguments of the learned Counsel and carefully perused the record of the case including the documents relied on by the learned counsel.
10. On an examination of the documents by which Ijarah lease finance facilities have been finally sanctioned there seems that initially the documents were prepared by the Relationship Officer Syed Abbas Hussain and Mansoor Alam and checked by Taufique Jaliawala and provided the sanction after being recommended by a team of 3 officers which though included the accused/applicant but also comprised of Murad Usmani, Head of Retail Banking and Syed Rashid Rehman, Group Head Corporate and Retail and their recommendations were approved by Shahid Anwar, Head of Credit and Nikolaus R. Schwarz, CEO. These facts led to the conclusion that apparently Ijarah lease finance was approved after going through the process of checks and approvals as per the bank's procedure. Even otherwise so far nothing has been brought on the record that the accused/applicant had knowingly connived with the other accused for providing Ijarah Loans on the basis of manipulate documents even Mansoor Alam in his statement has made presumptive statement that his signature may have been forged either by Taufiq Jaliawala or by the present accused and he has not made any definite statement in this regard.
11. We are, therefore, of the considered opinion that further inquiry is needed to establish the prosecution case against the present accused/applicant and therefore he is entitled to bail at this stage.
12. The above are reasons in respect of our short order delivered in Court after hearing the learned counsel on 9-9-2009 by which we admitted the present applicant/accused to bail on furnishing solvent surety in the sum of Rs,2,000,000 (Rupees Two Million) and P.R. Bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Nazir of this Court. We had also directed the applicant/accused to deposit his current valid Passport with the Nazir of this Court before bail order is finally granted.
13. Needless to observe that the observations in this order are tentative in nature for the purpose of bail only and the case should be disposed of by the trial Court without being influence by these observations.
14. The applicant/accused is directed to fully cooperate in the investigation of the case and attend all the hearings before the trial Court, failing which this concession of bail may be withdrawn.