' IRFAN SAADAT KHAN, J.---This Criminal Bail Application has been filed on behalf of the applicant/accused Naeem Qasmi in respect of F.I.R. No,3 of 2009, under sections 420, 468, 471 and 34 P.P.C. Of Police Station FIA, CBC-II, Karachi.
2. Precisely the facts of the prosecution case are that on 10-6-2009 present F.I.R. Was lodged on the complaint of Saeedullah Khan stating therein that he is working in UAE, Abu Dhabi at Zakim Development Company at Off Shore Oil Field. He works for 4 weeks and get rotation leave for Pakistan for 4 weeks. He is maintaining his PLS Account with UBL Strechen Road Branch since the last 20 years. According to the complainant, on 14-11-2008 he came to Pakistan and on 21-11-2008 when he went to the said bank, on asking for the bank statement, it transpired to him that from his bank Account No,1004818-5 Rs,3,50,000 and Rs,25,00,000 have been drawn through Cheque Nos.8345886 and 8345887 on 23-9-2008 and 15-11-2008, respectively. On checking the cheque book, complainant found that the said cheques were stolen from the cheque book out of the sequence. The complainant made enquiry in this regard on which he came to know that the said cheques were deposited in the MCB Branch of Mehdi Tower in Account No,3302-9 of Naeem Qasim (i.e, the present applicant), hence, he requested for taking legal action against him so that his amount total of Rs,2,850,000 may be returned to him.
3. After usual investigation, challan was submitted and the applicant is facing trial before the Special Court (Offences in Banks) Sindh at Karachi where bail application was filed by him but the same was dismissed vide order dated 21-5-2011 and against that order this Criminal Bail Application has been filed.
4. Mr. Muhammad Naseeruddin, learned counsel appeared on behalf of the applicant and submitted that the applicant was having business relations with the complainant and the cheques given by the complainant were with regard to purchase of some property. He submitted that the prosecution so far has examined 14 witnesses in this case but no witness has directly implicated the applicant for pocketing the money of the complainant by the applicant. He further submitted that there is delay of seven months in lodging the F.I.R. For which no plausible reason has been given. He further submitted that there are material contradictions in the statement given by the complainant as he has stated that the stolen cheques were kept by him in his locker and how these cheques reached the hands of the applicant has not been satisfactorily explained. He lastly submitted that in view of the above facts this is a fit, case of further enquiry, therefore, the applicant may be enlarged on bail.
5. Mr. Muhammad Qasim, learned Standing Counsel, along with Mr. Israr Ahmed, Deputy Director, FIA and Investigating Officer Inspector Niaz Hussain, FIA, appeared on behalf of the State and supported the order passed by the Trial Court dated 21-5-2011. Learned Standing Counsel submitted that the applicant was an absconder and was subsequently arrested which proves the mala fide on the part of the applicant. He further submitted that the disputed amounts were found from the bank account of the applicant, which clearly connect him with the charges levelled upon him.
6.
7. #TBS
8. MLD
9. #TBE
10. We have heard the learned counsel at some length and have perused the record.
11. It is seen that none of the prosecution witnesses have directly implicated the applicant in the alleged offence, which has not been controverted by the learned Standing Counsel appearing in this case. It is strange to note that when the cheque book of the complainant was kept in his locker, as he resides in UAE, how the said cheques reached the applicant which fact has not been satisfactorily explained. We have also noted that the F.I.R. Has been lodged after seven months of which no plausible explanation has been furnished by the complainant and the only reason given in this regard was that he was away. We have also seen from the statement given by one Elbert Soza, who was a bank employee, that the signatures appearing on the cheques, as per his opinion, were not forged signatures. We have further seen from the record that as per the deposition of Waqar Ali Khan, a bank employee, the complainant has stated that the cheques were misplaced from his house, hence the complainant's statement that the same were misplaced from the locker also appears to be a contradiction. We have also seen from the deposition of Farhan Khan, bank manager, who has categorically stated that the cheques were not stolen from his table whereas according to the complainant cheques were placed before the table of the bank manager from where these were stolen.
12. Deputy Director, FIA, present before us, has also conceded that this is a case of further enquiry and in view of the facts and circumstances the applicant is entitled to grant of bail.
13. In view of the observations made above we are of the considered view that this is a fit case of further enquiry and the applicant is entitled to be enlarged on bail. However, as in this case the matter pertains to the alleged embezzlement for a sum of Rs,2,850,000, therefore, the applicant Naeem Qasmi is granted bail subject to furnishing solvent surety in the sum of Rs,2,850,000 and P.R.
Bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Trial Court.
14. Before parting with the case, it is made clear that the observations made above are also tentative in nature and the same shall not prejudice the case of either party at the trial.
15. Above are the reasons for our short order passed today in the Court whereby bail was granted to the applicant.