MUHAMMAD QASIM KHAN, J.---Petitioner (Muhammad Younis) seeks post arrest bail in case FIR No,45/2014 dated 4-2-2014 under sections 420/468/471/411, P.P.C. Registered at police station Kot Chutta, Dera Ghazi Khan.
2. Briefly the facts of the case are that Babar Ali complainant got lodged the above FIR with a narration that he is dealer of NFM L (National Fertilizer Marketing Limited) in Kot Chhuta. On 7-11-2013, he received a call from Mobile No,0307-773056 and the caller offered to buy 1200-bags of fertilizer on profit of Rs,30 per bag. The deal was accordingly struck and after a while a Truck with Demand Draft No,0966995 came to the. Complainant at Kot Chhuta, Rs,30,000 as commission price was given to the complainant and Rs,6,000, remaining amount of commission, was promised to be given later, the complainant put his signatures on the back of Demand Draft. Thereafter, the said person handed over said Demand Draft to Muhammad Zafar, Store Incharge and took away 1200- bags of fertilizer. On 19-11-2013, Muhammad Zafar Store Incharge informed the complainant by telephone that Demand Draft was fictitious and no amount was available in the account. On move by the complainant the Demand Draft was found to be bogus and further it came to his knowledge that same fertilizer had been sold on the shop of one Irfan son of Ghulam Shabbir. The complainant went to Irfan who told that he also had received a call from Mobile No,0307-7553056 and the Caller sold him 1200-bags of fertilizer at Rs,1,640 per bag and Rs,19,68,000 were given to seller. Thereafter, the complainant and Irfan carried out search of the Caller, when they collected phone data, the number was found closed. Afterwards, EMI of the cell phone (355190054911359) was gathered and one SIM No,03338567622 was found operative against the said EMI. It was traced that one Muhammad Abu Bakar was using the said SIM. The complainant along with witnesses went to Abu Bakar and told him that fraud has been committed from his Cell. Muhammad Younis (petitioner) and Sherbaz (petitioner's brother) were present there and were identified by the complainant party. Abu Bakar told that his SIM No,03338567622 is with Muhammad Younis and he is using the same. Ultimately, Muhammad Younis (petitioner), Abu Bakar Siddique and Sherbaz confessed their guilt.
3. Heard.
4. After hearing the arguments of learned counsel for the parties at considerable length and perusing the entire relevant record, it has been observed that:--
(i) The petitioner is nominated in the FIR with a specific role;
(iI) On the face of it a fraud of quite a huge amount has been committed in this case in a sophisticated manner;
(iii) The narration of the FIR, prima facie stands corroborated by the material so far collected by the Investigating Officer of this case;
(iv) Explicit statement of one Rana Muhammad Nadim has been recorded under section 161, Cr.P.C.
Who runs a computer composing shop, and in his statement the witness has specifically named the petitioner along with his brother that had got composed a Demand Draft in the name of NFML on the plea that original had been misplaced by them;
(v) Statement of another witness namely Irfan has also been recorded from whose shop defrauded fertilizer had been sold. In his statement, Irfan has disclosed a specific mobile number (0307-7553056) which was used to struck the deal of sale and purchase of fertilizer and after the said deal, Muhammad Younis (present petitioner) along with his brother Sherbaz came to him and they in their presence deloaded the fertilizer from their Trucks and put the same in his shop;
(vi) During investigation, when SIM data was tried to be searched, it transpired that said SIM had been closed, however, on investigation about EMI number, it was revealed that mobile set of one Muhammad Abu Bakar was used when making calls from SIM No, 0307-7553056, and said Muhammad Abu Bakar in his statement under section 161, Cr.P.C. Disclosed that his mobile remained under the use by Muhammad Younis (petitioner). In this respect mobile/call data has also been collected by the Investigating Agency, which fact provides sufficientincriminating material against the petitioner;
(vii) Apart from all above, the petitioner also has a criminal history of involvement in similar cases; (viii)On the face of it, the petitioner is involved in a white-collar crime, and undoubtedly these offences are not victimless. A single scam can destroy a company, devastate families by whipping out their life savings, or cost billions of rupees to the victims. By passage of time such type of crimes are now becoming more sophisticated than ever, and the Investigating Agencies have to use modern devices and expertise skills to track down the culprits. In these circumstances, when indirect/ circumstantial evidence is collected by the Investigating Agencies without breakage of chain, the same can be considered sufficient evidence/material to connect the accused with commission of the crime.
(ix) In the same manner, in the instant case, although direct evidence may not available, yet prima facie the prosecution has succeeded in collecting such an evidence, which sufficiently provides a chain to connect the petitioner with commission of alleged crime.
5. From tentative assessm ent of the material discussed above, this Court is of view that prima facie sufficient incriminating material has been collected by the prosecution against the present petitioner. Consequently, I find no force in this petition to enlarge the petitioner on bail at this stage.
Bail application is accordingly dismissed.