' Noor Muhammad petitioner, who is involved in a case under section 420/468/471, P.P.C. Arising out of F.I.R. No, 35/1989, dated 7-3-1989, registered at Police Station City Renala Khurd, District Okara, has sought to be released on bail.
2. According to the F.I.R. The facts of the case are that the complainant deals in Fertilizer at Renala Khurd. After one year, when he checked his registers, he found that Rs,1,05,000 had been misappropriated by his Clerk, the present petitioner. It is further alleged that Noor Muhammad petitioner disclosed that he misappropriated the money at the instance of Abdullah, brother of the petitioner, and Abdullah, Lambardar. It is also alleged that he convened a Panchayht and the petitioner along with co-accused promised for the return of money of Rs,70,000 but they had been putting him of on one pretext or the other and ultimately refused.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that this criminal case is a outcome of malice as civil litigation is pending between the petitioner and the complainant. According to the learned counsel, it is very strange and does not stand to reason that the complainant did not check the account for complete one year.
4. Learned counsel further contended that the petitioner is behind the bars since 10-3-1989 and not a single witness has been recorded so far. The disputed signature has not yet received back from the handwriting expert after comparison, hence there is no possibility that the trial against the petitioner before the trial Court would commence in the near future. Learned counsel also contended that the petitioner is involved in account matter and if he remained behind the bars he will suffer in his defence. It is a case for the grant of bail to the petitioner, because the offence does not fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C. And has placed reliance on 1982 P Cr. L J 497 that in such like cases the petitioner is entitled to bail as a matter of right when he is in the judicial lock up and is no more required for investigation purpose.
5. Learned counsel for the State assisted by the Investigating Officer has vehemently opposed the hail application on the ground that the petitioner has admitted his liability upto Rs,70,000 and the complainant has also filed a civil suit for the recovery of damages, hence, the petitioner is not entitled to bail being the accused in offence under cheating, forgery and breach of trust.
6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have myself perused the police file and find that the petitioner is involved in account matter and the A petitioner may suffer in his defence if he is not allowed bail at this stage when lie is not required by the police.
7. The upshot of the above discussion is that the petitioner is admitted to bail, provided he furnishes security in the sum of Rs,1,00,000 (Rupees one lac only) with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Assistant Commissioner, Okara.