The petitioner has applied for pre-arrest bail in a case under section 409/420/468/471, P. P. C. Read with section 5 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, registered on 20th April, 1980 vide F. I. R.
No. 7/80 at Police Station, F. I. A., Bahawalpur.
2. The allegation against the petitioner is that he has embezzled a sum of Rs. 3,50,000 and further Rs. 20,000 while he was working as Manager of United Bank Limited, Liaquatpur.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner had earlier been involved in 17 cases registered against him for the embezzle--ment of 24 lacs of rupees and he was consequently arrested but released on bail on 26th April, 1980, by this Court, on the ground that as amount of Rs. 9,04,400 had already been recovered and that the petitioner was detained in jail for more than a year. It is argued that the instant case also relates to the same period but was maliciously got registered a few days earlier than the release of the petitioner on bail. It was lastly submit--ted that registration of the instant case is outcome of malice and the petitioner has been involved falsely in this case.
4. Learned counsel for the State assisted by counsel for the complai--nant, on the other hand, submitted that the petitioner has embezzled public money which ran into lacs of rupees and he was not entitled to the concession of pre-arrest bail. It was submitted that the instant case relates to the amount which was relatable to Ahmadpur East Branch of the Bank and was not discovered earlier as the accused manipulated in such a manner that no trace of it allowed to stand in the Bank records at Liaqatpur. It was also submitted that the recovery of the embezzled amount has yet to be made by the Investigating Officer.
5. The petitioner stands already charged with similar offences for embezzlement of huge amount.
The investigation in the case is on its initial stages. The petitioner was a Bank employee having direct dominion over the Bank amount and there is serious allegation that he embezzled the A public amount lying in trust with him. This is not a fit case to exercise discretion, at this stage, for providing concession of pre-arrest bail to the petitioner. There is no merit in this petition, which stands dismissed.