Through this petition under Section 497, Cr.P.C. Rana Ghulam Khaliq, petitioner has sought bail after arrest in case FIR No. 159/2015, dated 16.04.2015 registered at Police Station Old Kootwali District Multan in respect of offences under Sections 420, 408, 468, 467, 381-A, 380, 471, PPC.
2. The arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties have been heard and the record of this case has also been perused with their able assistance. This is bail after arrest and deeper appreciation of evidence is not allowed at this stage. It has been noticed by this Court that the petitioner is named in FIR and specific allegation is leveled against him that he being Regional Manager Stocks, Sale Vehicles and Accountant, at Multan of Pakistan, Egro Chemical Private Limited Karachi embezzled an amount of Rs. 4,50,00,000/- by preparing forged PRs and invoices and also took away the office record including electric record, four computers as well as one XLI car and four Cultus cars. The petitioner was earlier inquired by a team of three members of company and was found involved in embezzlement. Fake PRs and invoices are available on the record. The offence committed by the petitioner is a white collar crime. He has been found involved in this case by the Investigating Officer and apart from the above, there are statements of PWs recorded under Section 161, Cr.P.C., including the persons to whom the petitioner issued cheques which were dishonoured, pointing accusing fingers towards the petitioner in this case. So far no or animosity of the complainant with the petitioner has been brought on record so that the former could falsely involve the latter in a case of this nature. The offence with which the petitioner is charged falls under the prohibitory clause of Section 497, Cr.P.C. After dismissal of his pre-arrest bail, the petitioner remained fugitive from law intentionally for period of almost six months. which act of the petitioner prima facie shows his guilty intent. So far as the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner also filed suit for rendition of account and copy of said suit has also been produced. In this regard, I may observed here that the FIR was registered against the petitioner on 16.04.2015 and the petitioner filed the suit for rendition of account on 15.09.2015 after registration of the instant FIR and the said suit has also been dismissed due to non- prosecution as stated by learned counsel for the complainant. Rest of the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner amounts to deeper appreciation of evidence which cannot be appreciated at this stage.
3. For what has been discussed above, this petition has got no force and the same is hereby dismissed.
4.The observations made above are tentative in nature and are strictly confined to the decision of this bail petition only.