ALI BAIG, J.---The petitioner/accused Abdul Ghaf far son of Gulsamber Khan through the instant petition filed under section 497, Cr.P.C. seeks post-arrest bail in Case FIR No,01/2018 registered under section 409, P.P.C. read with section 5(2), P.C.A., 1947 at police station No,14 FIA ACC GLT at the instanc e of Mr. Javed Hussain Branch Manager N.B.P . Jutial Cantt Branch.
2. The necessary facts of the case as disclosed in the FIR are that the petitioner/accused namely Abdul Ghafar son of Gulsamber was posted at the National Bank of Pakistan (NBP), Jutial Cantt. Branch, Gilgit and was performing his duties as Incharge cash/Head cashier . On 17-1-2018, the accused/petitioner indented Rs, 30 million from the Chief Cashier , NBP main branch, Gilgit over telephone and subsequently , he went to the NBP main branch, Gilgit at about 14:15 PM to collect cash himself instead of using secured vehicle of the security company . He returned the Jutial Cantt. branch after collecting the cash and without handing over the original indent to the Chief Cashier , main, Branch, Gilgit. The main, branch, Gilgit originated REV on 17-1-2018 against the aforesaid cash amount of Rs, 30 million delivered to the accused which was not responded by the Jutial Cantt Branch, where the accused was posted on 18-1-2018, The Jutial Cantt Branch remitted an amount of Rs,36 million to the NBP Main Branch and also responded to the previous day's RBV, on 22-1-2018. The Jutial Cantt. Branch of NBP found shortage of Rs, 28,700/- million on account of aforesaid act of the accused/petitioner . It is also important to mention here that the accused left the Jutial Cantt. Branch on 22-1-2018 by deserting the keys under his control on the pretext of some urgency at the CMH Gilgit and did not return to the branch. Moreover , the accused switched off his cell phone to avoid any contact' with Bank's officials. On continuous efforts by the Bank's regional management, the accused was contacted through his family on 22-1-2018 and he categorically admitted his wrongdoing. In this regard, the accused also signed and thumb impressed on an affidavit/ undertaking in unequivocal terms to return the embezzled amount of Rs,28,700/- million by 25-1-2018. The accused has not returned the embezzled amount to the NBP despite giving an undertaking in this regard. The aforesaid facts clearly established that the above named accused has admittedly caused huge financial loss to the tune of Rs,28.7 million to the NBP through his criminal act of embezzlement/mis-appropriation.
3. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner/ accused contented that the petitioner/accused is innocent and the FIA authorities have falsely involved the petitioner in this case with mala fide intention. The learned counsel for the petitioner/accused further argued that the allegations leveled against the present petitioner/accused are financial corruption /obligation which will be thrashed out after conclusion of trial of case of the petitioner/accused, hence the petitioner/ accused is entitled for concession of bail.
4. On the other hand the learned Deputy Attorney General Pakistan for Gilgit-Baltistan and learned A.D (legal) FIA Syed Dildar Hussain Shah controverted the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner/accused by contending that the petitioner has dishonestly embezzled huge amount amounting to Rs,2,8700,000/- from National Bank of Pakistan Cantt. Branch Jutial. The learned A.D (legal) FIA and Deputy Attorney General Pakistan for Gilgit Baltistan further argued that the FIA authorities have recovered more than one coror embezzled amount from the petitioner/accused hence, the petitioner is prima facie connected with the commission of alleged offence.
The learned Deputy Attorney General of Pakistan for Gilgit Baltistan further argued that the accused/petitioner is directly charged in the promptly lodged FIR and section 409 falls within ambit of prohibitory clause of section 497(1), Cr .P.C., thus the petitioner is not entitled for concession of bail at this stage.
5. We have given our anxious consideration to the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record with their able assistance.
6. From perusal of record it transpires that the petitioner/accused is directly charged in the FIR with specific role of embezzlement of huge amount. The petitioner/accused was incharge cash/ head cashier and was posted at the National Bank of Pakistan Jutial Cantt. Branch Gilgit. The accused/petitioner collected cash amounting to Rs, 30 million from the chief cashier NBP main branch Gilgit himself instead of using the security vehicle of the security company with mala fide intention and has dishonestly mis-appropriated the above mentioned huge amount. The FIA authorities have recovered 1,13,97,000/- out of total 2,87,00,000/-embezzled amount from the petitioner/accused as evident from the record. Hence it can, therefore, be safely inferred that there are prim facie reasonable grounds to believe that the petitioner/accused is involved in the offence punishable with imprisonment for life or for an imprisonment which may be extended to 10 years hence, the offence under section 409, P.P.C. falls within the ambit of prohibitory clause of section 497(1), Cr .P.C.
7. Moreover , the petitioner/accused vide undertaking, copy whereof submitted in the court of learned Sessions Court Gilgit on 18.7.2018 has categorically admitted that he has taken the amount of 30 million from National Bank 'Pakistan Jutial branch and had undertaken to return the said mis-appropriated amount to the NPB Gilgit but he has failed to return the whole embezzled amount. Thus the petitioner/accused has failed to make out a case for grant of bail at this stage as he is being public servant has committed an offence of criminal breach of trust which amounts to moral turpitude.
8. In view of foregoing reasons, we find no merits in this bail petition which is accordingly dismissed and bail is declined to the petitioner/accused. File.