MUHAMMAD SAFDAR KHAN SIKANDRI, J.---The complainant-petitioner Muhammad Sajid is aggrieved from the impugned order dated 5-10-2010 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, D.I. Khan whereby the accused-respondents Saif ur Rehman and Saeed ur Rehman were granted bail in case F.I.R. No.598 dated 26-8-2010 registered under sections 408/420/471/34, P.P.C.
At Police Station City, D.I. Khan, therefore, has come up to this Court along with the instant petition for seeking the cancellation of bail of the accused-respondents.
2. The allegations against the accused-respondents are that they along with their co-accused Arshad Ali and Muhammad Mushtaq misappropriated and embezzled cash amount to the tune of Rs.15,33,987 and petroleum total worth Rs.76,63,498 from the Qazi Petrol Pump under the control and proprietorship of Qazi Waqar.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued in support of his petition for cancellation at some length and stated that the accused-respondents are directly charged in the F.I.R. For the offence of embezzlement of huge amount, therefore, they were not entitled to be released on bail.
4. On the contrary, learned counsel for the accused-respondents vehemently contended that they are not the employees of Petrol Pump under the control of Qazi Waqar, therefore, the accused- respondents have no concern whatsoever with the amount to be deposited in the Bank by them.
He further contended that the punishment for the offences for which the accused-respondents are charged does not fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C. And there is no exceptional circumstance to be agitated by complainant for the cancellation of bail granted to the accused-respondents.
5. I gave my considered thought to the arguments addressed by counsel for the parties at the bar and have reached to this conclusion that the complainant-petitioner Muhammad Sajid is the auditor whereas Arshad Ali is the General Manager of Qazi Petroleum Services under the proprietorship of Qazi Waqar whereas the accused-respondents are not the employees under the said Qazi Waqar though they are the brothers of Arshad Ali who allegedly went to the Bank jointly for deposit of the amount. From perusal of F.I.R. Referred to above and the documents available on file, it appears that the cash of Rs.15,33,987 of three days i.e. 20, 21 and 22 August, 2010 was handed over by the complainant to Arshad Ali to deposit the same in the Banks concerned with the direction to bring back the deposit slips, however, on inquiry by Qazi Waqar in the afternoon from the Senior Auditor namely Sajid about the non-deposit of the amount in his Account, he did not tell about the receipt of the Bank slips about the amount in question and later on held responsible Arshad Ali and his brothers along with his maternal uncle Muhammad Mushtaq for the embezzlement but, admittedly the accused-respondents are not the employees of Qazi Petroleum Service. It is further evident that one another application bearing Cr.MBC No.449 of 2010 was moved by the complainant against Muhammad Mushtaq but the same was not pressed before this Count and the same was accordingly dismissed being the charge against the accused respondent Mushtiaq not covered under section 408, P.P.C. Similar is the case of present accused-respondents who are not the employees of Qazi Petroleum and their role is only to the extent that they have transported Arshad Ali up to the Bank. The accused-respondents remained in the custody but nothing has been recovered from their possession or any confessional statement has been made by them, therefore, the provision of subsection (2) of section 497, Cr.P.C. Is attracted at the moment and the merits of the case will be scrutinized by the trial Court when evidence is recorded.
6. So far as the grant of bail to the accused-respondents by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge is concerned, the merits of the case have not been discussed deeply because the Court will not pass an order in vacuum and will have to assess and appraised the materials available before him. The offences for which the accused-respondents are charged do not fall under the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C.. And the grant of bail in such-like cases, is a rule and refusal an exception. In spite of the fact that huge amount has been embezzled but it is still shrouded in mystery that who is responsible for this mischief and it can be determined only by the trial Court on recording evidence. In view of the dictum reported in the titled case of Muhammad. Azhar v.
Dilawar and another (2009 SCM R 1202), strong and exceptional grounds were required for cancelling bail granted to accused by. Competent Court of law, i.e. Whether order granting bail was patently illegal, erroneous, factually incorrect and had resulted in miscarriage of justice, no exception could be taken to the conclusion rightly reached by the High Court---Accused was not shown to have misused the concession of bail and he was entitled to remain on bail.
7. In view of these observations, the bail of accused-respondents does not call for interference as the impugned order does not suffer from any infirmity, irregularity or miscarriage of justice.
Reference can also be given to the titled case of Mst. Amina Bibi v. Muhammad Amin (2010 Cr.LJ 724) authored by his Lordship Mr. Justice Attaullah Khan where bail cancellation application was dismissed.
8. So far as the plethora of authorities referred by counsel for the petitioner are concerned, I have great regard for the same but no doubt that in some of the authorities bail was either cancelled or it .Was granted but the facts and figures of the cases cited in the authorities are distinguishable from the case-in-hand, therefore, not directly applicable to this case and hence, no reliance was placed on the same for the purpose of this petition.
9. In view of the above referred observations, I am of the confirmed view that no case is made out for cancellation of bail and hence, without delving deep into the merits of the case, the bail cancellation application is hereby dismissed.