ABDUL MAALIK GADDI, J.---Accused/ Applicant namely , Mst. Adeeba Khan involved in case FIR No.19 of 2019 under sections 409/468/471/477-A/109, P.P.C. read with Ordinance No.IX of 1984 (Offences in Banks), Police Station FIA/CBC, Karachi, after being refused concession of bail by the Special Court (Offences in Banks) Sindh at Karachi has come to this Court for the same relief.
2. The allegations against the applicant/accused is that she while holding post as Branch Manager of Dubai Islamic Bank Limited, DHA, Phase-IV , Karachi, she along with her senior manage ment with their joint consent, embezzled/cheated/fraud of Rs.47.5 Million against Term Deposit Certificate (TDR) invested by the complainant during 2016 to 2019 in his account bearing No.0228086001 being maintained at aforesaid bank.
3. Mr. Muhammad Saleem Mangio, learned Counsel for the applicant/accused Mst. Adeeba Khan has contended that applicant/ accused is a lady and has been falsely implicated in this case by the complainant; that applicant/accused resigned from Bank Al-Falah on 25.09.2019 and there is no likelihood that the applicant will tamper the evidence; that investigating officer searched the house of applicant on 21.11.2019 and no recovery was made; that none of the evidence connects the applicant with the commission of the alleged embezzlement during the period 2016-2018; that the applicant resigned from DIBL in 2017, thus, she is not responsible for any offence committed after her resignation; that during the period between 26.12.2016 till March 2017 the applicant was not posted at DHA, Phase-IV Branch of DIBL, but she was posted at DHA, Phase-I Branch, therefore, there is no apprehension of absconsion of the applicant; that the applicant has been harassed by the complainant prior to initiation of present proceedings and regarding illegal harassment, the complaint against complainant is pending before the learned J.M. Karachi South and Civil Suit No.1503 of 2018 is also pendi ng before this Court; that instant proceedings are based on the mala fide on the part of the complainant; that complaint and enquiry notice alleges the embezzlement against the accused lady, Mohid Mazhar and senior managem ent, hence, it is uncertain that who had committed alleged embezzlement; that official of DIBL visited the house of applicant on 08.09.2019 and conducted search but no recovery was effected; that pay orders are used to be issued by the cashiers and authorized by the Operation Manager; that Branch Manager has nothing to do in the process of making pay orders; that the applicant has nothing to do with the transactions taken place after her resig nation; that the pay orders were prepared after the tenure of the applicant; the alleged term deposit certificate is not seized by the prosecution; that the balance certificates bear the dates after resignation of the applicant; that the date of resignation is deliberately not mentioned in the challan; that the officials who prepared instruments have not been named as the applicant; that the case has been registered due to connivance of successor of applicant and the victim; that victim and beneficiaries are investors running illegal business; that customer used to receive account statements, sins and email alerts, therefore, it cannot be believed that the complainant was ignorant of the transaction from the year 2016 to 2019; that complainant called the accused lady on 06.09.2019 for opening of new account, when she visited the premises and she was illegally confined and cheques of Rs.9 crores were forcibly obtained; that the passport and CNIC of the applicant were confiscated; that the case of applicant is of further inquiry , therefore, she is entitled for grant of bail. In support of his contentions, learned Counsel has relied upon the following case laws:-
(i) Saeed Ahmed v . The State reported in 1996 SCMR 1 132;
(ii) Tariq Bashir and 5 others v . The State reported in PLD 1995 Supreme Court 34;
(iii) Zaigham Ashraf v . The State and others reported in 2016 SCMR 18 ;
(iv) Aman Ullah v . The State and another reported in 2017 YLR 1263 ;
(v) Muhammad Bilal Anwar Shakir v . The State reported in 2017 MLD 1957 ;
(vi) Hussain Haqani v . The State reported in 2000 PCr .LJ 161.
4. Mr. Muhammad Ahmed, learned Assist ant Attorney General, assisted by Mr. Mohsin Shahwani, learned Counsel for complainant, while opposing this bail application submits that name of the applicant/accused is appearing in FIR and the complaint; that the account of Imran/Faiza Sabrani was opened and operated by accused lady wherein she had mentioned her own residential address and mobile number; that beneficiaries of the pay orders Abdullah Khan, Burhan Ahmed, Khalid, Jan Muhammad and Muzafar Talpur are not acquainted with the complainant but they know accused lady; that accused lady used to borrow different amounts from the beneficiaries who are now PWs and later on adjustment was made through pay orders issued from the account of the complainant on the basis of forged application forms, post dated cheques used to be given by the accused lady to PWs against the amount which she borrowed; PW Osama has implicated the present accused through whom she used to deposit profit of term deposit certificate in the account of victim on her instructions, such deposit slips have also been seized; that accused lady was held responsible in the internal enquiry conducted by the bank; that the accused lady has misappropriated the amount by adopting this modus operandi through parallel banking; that the mobile phone of lady accused was sent forensic which contains balance certificates issued to the victims; hence, prayed for rejection of bail. In support, he has relied upon the following case laws:-
(i) Chaudhry Shujat Hussain v . The State reported in 1995 SCMR 1249 ; (ii)Chief Manager/Attorney , Allied Bank Limited v . Shahid Ullah and others reported in PLD 2009 SC 446 ;
(iii) Muhammad Haseeb Khan and another v. The State through FIA CBC, Karachi, reported in 2012 PCr.LJ 1;
14. This bail application was heard and dismissed through our short order dated 06.04.2020 and these are the detailed reasons thereof,