' SYED HASAN AZHAR RIZVI, J.---By this common order, I intend to dispose of five Criminal Bail Applications Nos.142 to 146 of 2012, arising out of F.I.Rs. Nos.10 to 14 of 2011, all registered under sections 409/420/468/471/109/34, P.P.C. At Police Station FIA CCC, as facts and circumstances of all the five bail applications are almost similar and same have been filed by one and same person.
2. First the F.I.Rs. Nos.135 to 140 of 2011 were registered at Police Station Cant., Hyderahad, however, at the request of the Senior Superintendent of Police, Hyderbad investigation was transferred to FIA as company viz. East West Assurance Company comes within the jurisdiction of Federal Government/FIA, therefore, the F.I.Rs. Were registered under Nos.10 to 14 of 2011 at Police Station FIA, Corporate' Crime Circle, Karachi on 28-9-2011 against the applicants and other co-accused persons.
3. The' brief facts of the cases in nutshell are that all the afore-mentioned F.I.Rs. Have been lodged by different complainants against the applicant and his companions. The applicant and other accused persons in collusion with each other obtained huge amount from various persons in the name of Guaranteed Income Policy (GIP) of East West Assurance Company having its office at Shelter Plaza, Saddar, Hyderbad and issued receipts against the said amount. Each policy was offered for Rs.1,20,000 and Rs.10,000 per month was profit on each policy was promised to be paid to customer. After obtaining money from the persons (complainants) the applicant and his companions paid monthly profit to them only for two or three months, thereafter, closed their office on the pretext of death of an official of the company. When many people including complainants gathered outside the office of the company to get their monthly profit, it transpired to them that the accused persons have defrauded and cheated them from the amount. Hence, the complainants lodged the above F.I.Rs. Names of the persons, who were deprived from their life earnings, have been mentioned in all F.I.Rs.
4. Mr. Abdul Mujeeb Pirzada counsel for r the applicant submitted that the applicant/accused is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the case by the police and FIA due to mala fide. He further submitted that applicant's case is not covered under prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C. And is of further inquiry as no specific allegation has been levelled against him. He further contended that although applicant has been nominated in the F.I.Rs. But allegations levelled against him are of general nature and he was the employee of East West Life Assurance Company Limited and if any illegality or irregularity has been committed, the Applicant being an employee in no way is responsible for the same. Learned Counsel for the Applicant has further argued that the main accused nominated in the F.I.Rs. Namely Dilshad Shaikh is already on ad interim pre-arrest bail granted to him by the District and Sessions Judge, Karachi (South). He has placed on record photocopies of the orders of learned District and Sessions Judge, Karachi (South) whereby the interim pre-arrest bail was granted to the main accused Dilshad Shaikh in several cases. Learned counsel has further submitted that all the cases of the applicant entirely depend upon, documentary evidence, which is in possession of the prosecution and there is no possibility of tampering with the evidence, therefore, applicant is entitled for grant of bail. Learned counsel has produced statement of account of the applicant maintained at Allied Bank Limited and submits that there is no transaction of any cash deposit and all deposits have been made through cheques.
5. To support his contention learned counsel for the applicant has relied upon the following cases:- ( I ) 1995 SCMR 170 (Saeed Ahmed v. The State).
(2) 1996 SCMR 1132 (Saeed Ahmed v. The State).
(3) 2010 YLR 2299 (Wasi Ahmed v. The State).
(4) 2008 YLR 767 (Abdul Wahid Bandkukda and others v. The State)
(5) 1990 PCr.LJ 732 (Noor Muhammad v. The State).
(6) 1998 MLD 202 (Abdul Jalil Khan v. The State).
6. Mr. Sadaqat Ali Khan learned Standing Counsel vehemently opposed the grant of bail to the applicant and contended that the applicant in collusion and active connivance of the other officials and agents of East West Life Assurance Company. Limited, have deprived hundreds of innocent persons from their life earnings. Applicant and co-accused, who are the officials/ sales agents of the company were involved in the illegal parallel banking business. They have obtained huge amount from innocent persons on the pretext of Guaranteed Income Policy (GIP) and the present applicant deposited said amounts in his personal account of Allied Bank Limited, Saddar Branch, Hyderabad instead of depositing the same in the company account. Applicant issued letters on letterheads of Messrs Achers (Pvt.) Ltd., to Brnach Manager ABL Shahrah Noor Branch, Hyderabad to open the account in the name and style of M/s Achers (Pvt) Ltd., and personal account in the name of Tahira Dilshad at Standard Chartered Bank, Auto Bhan Road, Hyderabad and those accounts were used by the accused persons to launder the crime proceeds., received from the complainants and others. It was further submitted by the learned Standing Counsel that the applicant and co-accused persons prepared monthly profit sheets and distributed the so- called GIP profit amongst the clients/policy holders for only two or three months, thereafter, the practice of payment of profit was discontinued and the customers approached to police and"' FIA authorities and reported the matter regarding offence committed by the applicant and co- accused persons. Learned Standing Counsel submits that the applicant is not entitled for grant of bail.
7. I have heard Mr. Abdul Mujeeb Pirzada learned counsel for the applicant, Mr. Sadaqat Ali Khan learned Standing Counsel in presence of Inspector Ali Murad and S.-I. Rizwan of FIA, Corporate Crime Circle, Karachi 'and have perused the relevant material available on record with their assistance. I have also gone through the statement of the prosecution witnesses recorded under section 161, Cr.P.C.
8. On tentative assessm ent and without going deeply into the material available before me, apparently the complainants and the witnesses in their respective statements recorded under section 161, Cr.P.C. Specifically and categorically stated that the officials/sales agents/consultants of Messrs East West Life Assurance Company Limited of Hyderabad Branch offered guaranteed income policy (GIP) to the complainants and had offered higher return/profit on their investments.
Complainants through cross-cheques made payment of the said guaranteed income policy to the present applicant and other officials of the company. Applicant issued written receipts of the said payments, which bears the signature of the present applicant. A Complainants received monthly profit for two or three months on their investments. All such illegalities and irregularities were carried out by the applicant and other officials/sales agents of Messrs East West IA Life Assurance Company Limited at the office of the company situated at Shelter Shopping Plaza, 1st Floor, Room No.20/21, Cantt. Hyderabad. Normally the Applicant and other officials/employees/sales agents of the aforesaid company issued one GIP policy for amount of Rs.1,20,000 and promised to pay monthly profit on the said amount at the rate of Rs.10,000 and the payment of the profit was paid through cheques as well as in cash. Present applicant after receipt of payments from the complainants issued protection plan/GIP Policy and premium slips. To the customers. Applicant was serving as Branch Secretary/ Assistant Branch Manager of the East West Life Assurance Company Limited at Hyderabad.
9. Material available on record prima facie establishing that the applicant and the other officials of the said company in collusion with each other deprived the innocent public of the society from their earning to the tune of millions of rupees and they were engaged in illegal business of parallel banking, cheating and fraud. When the customers of the company failed to receive monthly profits as promised by the applicant and co-accused, they approached to the FIA Authorities and F.I.Rs.
Were registered and supplementary/interim charge-sheets have already been submitted in the Court of District and Sessions Judge, Karachi-South on 28-11-2011.
10. With regard to the objection of the learned counsel for the applicant that the cases alleged upon the applicant do, not fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497(1), Cr. P. C. In my humble opinion the grant of bail in the case to an accused in every case not hit by 'the prohibitory clause of section 497(1), Cr.P.C. Is not a rule of universal application and each case has to be dealt with on its own facts and circumstances. Grant of bail, no doubt, is discretion granted to a Court, but its exercise cannot be arbitrary, fanciful or perverse. The Court may decline bail to accused in offences even not falling under prohibitory clause of section 497(1), Cr.P.C., if there exists recognized exceptional circumstances. Distinction is to be made - between the offence which is committed by an individual like theft and an offence which is directed against -the whole society for the purpose of bail, in the former category practice to allow bail in cases not falling under prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C. In absence of exceptional circumstances, might be followed; but in latter category, the Courts are to be strict in exercise of discretion of bail. In cases affecting whole society, the offenders belonged to a distinct class and they qualified to be falling within an exceptional circumstance warranting refusal of bail even where maximum sentence was less than ten years for the offence involved, provided the Court was satisfied that prima facie, there is material on record to connect accused with commission of offence. To support the above version reference may be made to 2009 SCMR 174 (Shameel Ahmed v. The State), '2009 PCr.LJ 1140 (Ijaz. Ahmed v.
Muhammad Aslam), PLD 2007 Karachi 27 (Raja Muhammad Zarat Khan v. The State) and 2007 PCr.LJ 171 (Syed Maqsoom Hussain Shah v. The State).
11. In the present case the applicant/ accused prima facie in connivance with the co-accused persons have deprived Hundreds of innocent persons from their life earnings therefore, he does not deserve for any discretionary relief. Investigating Officer has collected number of complaints from aggrieved persons, who were deprived from the life earnings by the applicant in connivance of co- accused persons. Number of persons recorded their 161, Cr.P.C. Statements and directly implicated the applicant, who has received money from them on the pretext of guaranteed income policy
(GIP) and issued receipts to theip. Five affectees have already lodged the F.I.Rs. And specifically nominated the applicant and other co-accused persons and mentioned detail of amount, which was received by the applicant and co-accused from the customers of Messrs. East West Life Assurance Company Limited on the pretext of Guaranteed Income Policy (GIP). Prima facie, it appears that the applicant in connivance with the co-accused persons in the garb of lawful business of insurance.
12. With regard to the arguments of the learned counsel for the applicant that main accused Dilshad Shaikh has already been granted bail has no force as the learned Standing Counsel has rightly pointed out that the learned District and Sessions Judge, Karachi (South) without touching the merits of the case granted the interim pre-arrest bail to the Dilshad Shaikh, which has not been confirmed as yet, therefore, rule of consistency is not applicable in the present case.
13. With regard\to the submission of the learned counsel for the applicant that the cases of the applicant/accused are based on documentary evidence and the same has already been collected by the prosecution as such there is no likelihood of tampering with the prosecution evidence is not attracted in the present case as the applicant and the co-accused persons have deprived hundreds of innocent persons from their life earnings by committing fraud through illegal and unlawful insurance business in the form of parallel banking by including public to invest the amount in Guaranteed Income Policy (GIP) and get profit of Rs.10,000 per month on investment of Rs. 1,20,000.
14. For the foregoing reasons discussed above, instant Bail Applications were dismissed by my short order dated 9-4-2012.
15. Observations made hereinabove are of tentative nature and the trial court shall not be influenced by any such observations.