NAIMATULLAH PHULPOTO, J. Applicant/accused Syed Salahuddin seeks post arrest ball in Crime No. 05/2024 for offences punishable under Sections 409. 420, 468, 471, 477-A, 109, 34, P.P.C registered as P.S FIA, CBC, Karachi Prior to this, applicant/accused applied for the same relief before learned Special Court (Offences in Banks) Sindh at Karachi, the same was rejected vide order dated 20.04.2024,
2. Brief acts of the prosecution case are that Fahad Butt a British citizen made complaint against applicant/accused Syed Salahuddin ex-Branch Manager DIBPL and others regarding embezzlement by the employees of Dubai Islamic Bank Pakistan, alleging therein that complainant Fahad Butt is the customer of Dubai Islamic Bank Pakistan since 2017, he was subjected to embezzlement of USD 866,000/- and Rs. 161,000,000/- which were deposited in Term Deposits in Dubai Islamic Bank of monthly and yearly profits. It is alleged that when investment was likely to be mature, complainant and his family intended to invest, the amount in various Government of Pakistan schemes for overseas Pakistanis, they approached Dubai Islamic Bank, they were shocked to know that their money has been embezzled. On 01.11.2023 complainant filed complaint before CEO Junaid Ahmed. After inquiry, FIR No. 05/2024 for offences punishable under Sections 409, 420, 468, 471, 477-A, 109, 34, P.P.C. was offences punishable at P.S FIA, CBC, Karachi against applicant/accused Syed Salahuddin and others. After usual investigation, chasm was submitted before learned Special Court (Offences in Banks) Sindh at Karachi.
3. Mr. Tahir Mehmood advocate for the applicant/accused contended the applicant/accused is innocent; that trial Court lacks jurisdiction to try this case; that material collected during investigation is insufficient to connect the applicant/accused in the commission of the offence; that P.Ws in their statements recorded under Section 161, Cr.P.C have not specifically implicated the applicant/accused in the commission of the offences; that case against the applicant/accused is entirely depends upon documentary evidence, which is in possession of the prosecution; that there is no possibility of tampering with the same and prayed for bail. In support of their contentions, reliance has been placed upon the cases reported as Mumtaz Ali Solangi v. The State (2021 YLR 50), Usman Farooqi v. The State (1999 PCr.LJ 1186), Syed Zulqarnain Shah v. The State (2022, PCr.LJ 112), Muhammad Zafar and others v. The State (2015 YLR 1446) and Wajid Ali v. D.C Lahore (2000 MLD 1572).
4. Pir Riaz Muhammad Shah DAG assisted by counsel appearing for the complainant argued that applicant/accused misappropriated and embezzled huge amount of complainant and his family; that applicant/accused transferred some amount in the name of his wife, who is co-accused and absconder in this case. It is further submitted that applicant/accused being Manager of Dubai Islamic Bank through deceitful means had withdrawn and transferred amount of Rs. 48,927,200/- and USD 608,913/- from the accounts of complainant Fahad Butt through different banking instruments and vouchers by fake and forged signatures of the complainant; that expert has also opined that signatures of the complainant have been forged. Lastly, argued that applicant/accused might tamper with the evidence if enlarged on bail and prayed for dismissal of the bail application.
5.. We have perused the contents of FIR, statements of P.Ws recorded under Section 161, Cr.P.C, Expert opinion and other material collected during investigation.
6. It appears from the record that applicant/accused Syed Salahuddin and others misappropriated the amount of the complainant and encashed as many as 21 bank instruments on the different dates without consent and knowledge of complainant Fahad Butt, by his fake and forged signatures upon the banking instruments. According to expert's opinion "the signatures appearing on the aforesaid bank instruments do not tally with the previous routine admitted signatures and specimen signatures of victim/complainant Mr. Fahad Butt. Hence, completely fake/fictitious in all respect." It appears that applicant/accused used to deposit and withdraw the amount from various accounts of the complainant with his forged signatures and huge amount was credited in the accounts opened and operated by the applicant/accused in his name and in the names of his wife and near relatives. DAG has argued that applicant/accused might temper with the evidence if enlarged on bail. The contention of learned advocate for the applicant/accused that P.W Suleman Abid Bhopal in his 161 Cr.P.C. statement has not specifically implicated the applicant/accused in the commission of the offences. This contention can only be examined deeply by the trial Court. Deeper appreciation of evidence is not permissible at bail stage.
7. Prima facie, there are reasonable grounds for believing that the applicant/accused has committed the alleged offences. No case for grant of post-arrest bail to the applicant/accused is made out. Resultantly, instant bail application is dismissed. However, Trial Court is directed to decide the case preferably within 03 months.
8. Needless to mention here that the observations made herein above are tentative in nature, the trial Court shall not be influenced by the same while deciding the case of the applicant/accused on merits. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.