1. ' GULZAR AHMED, J.---The applicant has been implicated in offences under sections 409/420/468/471/34 P.P.C. In Crime No,10/2009 by PS FIA CBC-H, Karachi. The applicant has applied for grant of bail to the Special Court (Offences Banks) Sindh at Karachi who by the order dated 31- 12-2009 has declined the same.
2. ' It is contended by the Counsel for the applicant that the applicant has nothing to do with the offence inasmuch as that the main accused Shah Nawaz Alam being Manager of HBL has misused the account of the applicant as he credited defalcated amount of Rs, 10 million in the account of the applicant out of which an amount of 1.1 million was withdrawn by main accused and remaining Rs,8.9 million were transferred by him in the account of Muhammad Shakeel who is shown in the challan as a witness. The learned Counsel states that no recovery was made from the applicant and that the amount of Rs, 1.1 million which is stated to have been withdrawn from his account as per the very F.I.R. Was recovered from main accused and the amount of Rs, 8.9 million has also been recovered by the Bank from account of Muhammad Shakeel. He states that the position of the applicant is similar to that of Muhammad Shakeel and that the applicant may be granted bail.
3. He further states that as inquiry has been completed and the matter relates mostly to the documentary evidence which has already been collected and challan has been submitted and this circumstance also entitles the applicant to grant of bail and in this respect has cited the case of Saeed Ahmad v. The State (1996 SCM R 1132).
4. ' The learned DAG has contended that the case is of further inquiry and he has no objection to the grant of bail to the applicant.
5. ' We have considered the submissions made by the learned Counsel and have gone through the record.
6. It appears that the main accused Shah Nawaz Alam, Manager Marketing & Branch Management Purchase and Expenditure Department GAD HBL, Head Office, Karachi has misappropriated from HBL amount of Rs,10 million which came to be credited in the account of the applicant at UBL, New Karachi Branch. Though it is alleged against the applicant that he has withdrawn an amount of Rs,1.1 million and remaining sum of Rs,8.9 million was transferred to the account of Muhammad Shakeel at NBP Sharifabad Branch, the very F.I.R. States that during departmental enquiry by the Bank the main accused Shah Nawaz Alam confessed and Rs, 1.1 million was recovered from him in the shape of three pay orders and all these three pay orders were issued from Bank Al-Habib in favour of HBL and remaining amount of Rs, 8.9 million was received by HBL from N.B.P. Sharifabad Branch. Apparently, no recovery has been made from the applicant and the sum of Rs,1.1 million alleged to be withdrawn by the applicant from his account as per the very F.I.R. Has been recovered from the main accused Shah Nawaz Alam who has paid the same through pay orders of Bank Al-Habib and not from the account of applicant. Though recovery of Rs, 8.9 million appears to have been made from the account of Muhammad Shakeel but he admittedly shown in the challan as witness and not as an accused person. The case on the facts as are presently emerging from the record puts the applicant in the same position that of Muhammad Shakeel Further, it is not disputed before us that the case hinges mainly on the documentary evidence which have been collected by the prosecution and there is no possibility tampering with the same. The principle laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the above cited case appears to be applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case. The learned D.A.G. Has also conceded to the grant of bail to the applicant. We, therefore, consider the case of applicant that to be of further enquiry and grant him bail on his furnishing surety in the sum of Rs,200,000 (Rupees Two Hundred Thousand only) and PR Bond is the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court.
7. ' This criminal bail application in the above terms stands disposed of.