MUHAMMAD ANWAARUL HAQ, J. - The petitioner seeks post arrest bail in case F.I.R. No. 1334, dated 22.11.2010 under Sections 381, 406 and 506, P.P.C. Registered at Police Station Factory Area Sheikhupura.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that there is an inordinate delay of 20 months in lodging of the F.I.R.; that the petitioner remained on physical remand for a considerable period but nothing was recovered from him; that there is no direct evidence against the petitioner and the audit report prepared by the complainant and his accountant is not a sufficient evidence to connect the petitioner with this crime; that he is behind the bars since 23.11.2010 without any substantive progress in his trial; that during the investigation the petitioner has been found involved only to the extent of Section 406, P.P.C., which does not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497, Cr.P.C. And case against the petitioner is one of further inquiry into his guilt.
3. On the other hand learned Deputy Prosecutor General assisted by learned counsel for the complainant while vehemently opposing this bail petition contends that the petitioner is involved in a huge embezzlement of about Rs. 36,80,665/-; that there is sufficient evidence against the petitioner including the bank statement of his account; that mere non-recovery is not a ground itself to enlarge the accused on bail; that there is no mala fide on the part of the complainant or the police and that the F.I.R. Is based upon annual audit report of the firm.
4. Arguments heard. Record perused.
5. Admittedly, there is an inordinate delay in lodging of the F.I.R. And nothing has been recovered from the petitioner despite the fact that he remained on physical remand for a considerable period. The investigating officer, present in Court, states that vide case diary No. 29, dated 8.2.2011 the petitioner has been found involved only to the extent of Section 406, P.P.C. The authenticity of the audit report prepared by the Manager Audit would be determined by the learned Trial Court after recording of some evidence. In view Of the final investigation report dated 8.2.2011 that the petitioner is only involved in this matter to the extent of an offence under Section 406, P.P.C., the case against him does not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497, Cr.P.C and is one of further inquiry into his guilt. He is behind the bars since 23.11.2010 without any substantive progress in his trial and as per police record the petitioner has no previous criminal record. I, therefore, admit the petitioner to bail subject to his furnishing bail bond in the sum of Rs. 500,000/- (Rupees five hundred thousand only) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned Trial Court.
6. It is, however, clarified that the observations made herein are just tentative in nature and strictly confined to the disposal of this bail petition.