Through this application petitioner seeks bail before arrest in case FIR No, 102, dated 25.11.2010, under Sections 409, 420, 467, 468, 471, PPC read with 5(2) 47 of PCA, registered with Police Station FIA, District Multan.
2. Precisely stated, the case of the prose cution as it gleans from the crime report is to the effect that the petitioner while posted as Postmaster at P.O. Allah Abad, Tehsil Liaqatpur misappropriated an amount of Rs, 9,38,100/- from the Food Support program (hereinafter to be referred as FSP').
3. It is contended by the learned counsel that the petitioner is innocent in the above mentioned case and has been implicated with malafide intention, that during the lengthy investigation of the instant case, no incriminating material has so far come on record to connect the petitioner with the commission of crime, that as per Standard Operating Procedure laid down for the disbursement of support fund, the detailed verification was required to be made by the officials of Bait-ul-Mal, Audit Office and GPO; that each application was required to be attested by the Local Councilor or Lumberdar or Chairman; that according to the laid down SOP, the petitioner was simply required to have a look of pass-book before releasing the requisite amount; that before making payment to respective persons, the petitioner adopted due care and caution and that in these circumstances, the case of the petitioner is covered by provision of Section 497(2), Cr .P.C. entitling him to pre-arrest bail.
4. Conversely , the learned Law Officer strongly opposed the grant of bail and submitted that the petitioner is specifically nominated in the FIR and is alleged to have misappropriated an amount of Rs, 9,38,100/-; that the petitioner remained fugitive from the process of law for sufficiently long period, which disentitles him from the concession of bail and that keeping in view the limited scope of pre-arrest bail, the instant petition is liable to be dismissed.
5. Arguments heard and record perused.
6. It divulges from the record that the instant case is arising out of a scam, wherein an amount of Rs, 9,38,100/- is alleged to have been misappropriated from the Food Support Program. It would be in fitness of things to mention here that for the disbursement of funds of FSP, a proper procedure was laid down. According to this procedure, at first stage, a form known as `FSP-001' was to be issued by Bait-ul-Mal to an applicant. Such form was required to be attested by the Local Councilor or Lumberdar or Chairman or any other Gazetted Officer. Subsequent to such verification, another form i,e, TSP-003' used to be issued in triplicate. One copy each, of form No, FSP-003 was required to be sent for verification to Auditor, office of Bait-ul-Mal and the concerned GPO and after scrutiny , a pass-book was to be issued in favour of the applicant. It is important to mention here that after the completion of all the pre-requisites mentioned above, an account in the name of the applicant was to be maintained in the 'GPO of the concerned District. After opening the account in the GPO, a pass-book was to be forwarded to the Postmaster of the concerned post office. At the time of disbursement of each installment, the applicant was required to submit is photograph along with copy of CNIC as well as the pass-book.
7. In the above backdrop, it is observed that the project of FSP was initiated in the year 2000. So far as, the petitioner is concerned, he was posted in Allah Abad post office on 08.09.2003, where he served till 02.11.2006. It is noticed that as per record, all the pass-books were issued in the year 2000 i,e, much before the posting of the petitioner . It is further revealed from the record that though as per allegation, installments of support fund were disbursed in favour of 167 beneficiarie s, who were issued pass-books but were received by fake persons.
Ironically , no statement of any of the original beneficiary is recorded under Section 161, Cr.P.C. It \will not be out of place to mention here that at the time of payment, thumb impression of each perso n was obtained and is available on record but no effort is made to get them verified from NADRA Authorities, so as to ascertain its correctness or otherwise.
8. Despite, the scrutiny of record, no circumstance has been noticed, which may suggest that either the petitioner failed to follow prescribed procedure or derived any monitory benefit out of the transaction. As per the guidelines or prescribed procedure for the identification of the beneficiaries and for the disbursement of funds/amount, the role of the petitioner comes at the end of the chain of requisites of verification.
9. The chain of facts mentioned above, prima facie, suggests that the prosecution is running short of requisite material to connect the petitioner with commission of crime. This feature, make s the case of petitioner one of further inquiry and probe. Though, instant petition is opposed on the ground that petitioner remained fugitive from process of law for a considerable period, however , the perusal of record suggests otherwise. This is an admitted fact that the petitioner was awarded punishment of compulsory retirement from the service on 29.09.2008 and subsequent thereto, he remained engaged in pursuing his legal remedy by filing an appeal before Department as well as before the Federal Service Tribunal, Islamabad. After acceptance of his appeal from FST, the petitioner has been re - instated in service w.e.f. 30.09.2009. In this backdrop, attribution of abscondment to the petitioner appears to be contrary to the record. This Court is not oblivious of the fact that dismissal of pre-arrest bail deprives a person from his liability on one hand and subjects him to harassment and humiliation on the other hand. Since the instant case comprises upon docume ntary evidence which already is in possession of Investigating Agency , hence there is no apprehension of any tempering with it. More so, when no material is available to reasonably connect the petitioner with the commission of crime, the claim of the petitioner for entitlement to pre-arrest bail appears to have some force. Resultantly , the instant petition is allowed and the interim pre-arrest bail already granted to petitioner vide order dated 15.3.2017 is hereby confirmed subject to furnishing fresh bail bonds amounting to Rs, 2,00,000/- with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court.