1. ' TUFAIL H. EBRAHIM, J.---Applicant/accused is involved in case Crime No,666 of 2010 registered at Police Station Sir Sayyed Karachi for the offence punishable under sections 457/380, P.P.C.
2. ' Brief facts of the prosecution case according to F.I.R. Lodged on 21-9-2010 by complainant Syed Tanveer Haider Zaidi at 2300 hours, in which he has stated he is doing job as Operation Manager in Cafe Student Biryani. On 14-9-2010 at 0230 hours office manager and other staff went away after closing the Cafe Student Biryani. The cash of whole day as well as cash of some previous days amounting to Rs,6,00,000 was kept in the locker. In the morning at about 10-30 a.m. Asif (applicant/accused) came to office and saw that above cash was missing and lock of cash room was broken. He started collecting information as the key of the cash room was also in the custody of that person. Computer system DVR and two machines were also found missing and cash box was found lying in the kitchen room and as such he informed to the owner of the Cafe Student Biryani. Hence this F.I.R. Has been lodged.
3. ' Learned counsel for the applicant/accused has argued that a false F.I.R. Has been lodged against all the staff members of Cafe Student Biryani situated in Sector 11/C-1, North Karachi alleging that cash amount of Rs,6,00,000 were stolen from the locker. Per learned counsel there is inordinate delay of seven days in lodging of F.I.R. For which no explanation has been given in the F.I.R. And no specific role has been assigned to the applicant/accused. Per learned counsel because of the delay no finger prints were taken. The key of the Biryani Centre is with 3 employees but no investigation has been made against the other two and the applicant/accused has been implicated in the said crime with mala fide reasons as he has been promoted from floor manager to home delivery manager and to manager. Per learned counsel the other Operational Manager has personal grudge against the applicant/accused as he fears his position will be taken over by the complainant. Per learned counsel owner's statement under section 161 Cr.P.C. Was not recorded. Per learned counsel the charge has been framed against the applicant/accused, who has fully cooperated with the I.O., but no prosecution witness has come forward to record his evidence before the Trial Court. Per learned counsel the offences with which the applicant/ accused is charged does not fall within the prohibitory clause.
4. ' On the other hand learned A.P.-G. Has vehemently opposed this bail application and submitted that there is no mala fide on the part of the complainant. Per learned A.P.-G. The F.I.R. And prosecution witnesses have fully implicated the applicant/accused in their 161, Cr.P.C. Statements, therefore in such circumstances the applicant/accused is not entitled for bail.
5. ' I have heard the learned counsel and perused the record. The delay in lodging F.I.R. Has not been explained and hence consultation and deliberation cannot be ruled out. No recovery has been made from the applicant/accused although the brother of the applicant/accused was kept in unlawful custody by the Police. No independent witnesses from the locality have been associated in the investigation. There was no reason for the applicant/accused to remove the digital cash box/locker from the cash room to the kitchen or to break open the locks through force. Prima facie there is no previous complaint against the applicant/accused who has been climbing the ladder of management in short time, which may be as source of concern for the other employees and a reason to falsely implicate the applicant/accused cannot be ruled out.
6. ' For the reasons as aforesaid I have come to the preliminary conclusion that the case against the applicant/accused is a fit case for further inquiry within the meaning of section 497(2), Cr.P.C.
7. Which entitles him for the grant of bail. The interim bail earlier granted to the applicant/accused on 12-10-2010 is confirmed on the same terms and conditions. The above discussion and findings are only tentative in nature and should not influence or prejudice the trial court in arriving at a just and fair decision, based on the evidence to be adduced at trial. The trial court is directed to conclude the trial expeditiously, preferably within a period of three months.