1. ' The case of prosecution, in brief, is that on getting a reliable spy information that a gang of criminals was engaged in circulation/sale, and counterfeiting U.S. Dollars a raid was organised by a F.IA. Team, consisting of Sardar Khan, Inspector, Muhammad Shall, Sub-Inspector, and Iqbal Hussain Shah, Head Constable, and as a result of said raid on 30-3-1993 on Shahrah-eIraq near Cafe Paradise, Karachi applicant Waseem Ahmed and co-accused Muhammad Hanif were arrested after the applicant sold U.S. Dollars to one Abdul Hameed, who according to F.I.R. Was assigned the job of test-purchaser. From personal search of applicant one Pak. Currency note of Rs,1,000 (tainted money), one counterfeit U.S. Dollar of 100 denomination, and approximately 8 grams heroin powder were recovered. Separate Mashirnama was drawn for heroin powder. Said test purchaser produced one counterfeit U.S. Dollar of 100 denomination, which he had purchased from the applicant. From co-accused Muhammad Hanif, one counterfeit U.S. Dollar of 100 denomination was recovered. The F.I.R. Was registered under sections 489-A, 489-C and 489-D/34, P.P.C. Read with section 3/4 of the Prohibition of Enforcement of Hadd Order, 1979. On completion of investigation, the charge-sheet was submitted before the concerned Court, showing Muhammad Hanif, Waseem Ahmed, and Hayat in custody and one Syed Adil as absconder.
2. ' The bail application of the applicant was dismissed by learned Sessions Judge, South vide order dated 19-4-1993.
3. ' It is contended on behalf of the applicant that in spite of the fact that no case was made out against the applicant, yet, learned trial Court without assigning any cogent reason rejected the bail application. It appears that learned trial Court has fallen in error in assuming that, on the basis of material so far available on record, the factum of the Dollars being forged was conclusively established. The factual position, however, is not so. Till date, the prosecution itself is not sure about the genuineness or otherwise of the seized Dollars. The record shows that the Investigating Agency sought verification from American Express Bank about genuineness or otherwise of the seized Dollars and the bank authorities showed their inability to do so. The position therefore, is that uptill now it cannot be said with certainty that those Dollars are forged, and final report in this regard is yet to be obtained, which according to learned counsel of applicant, will take sufficient time as this fact can only be ascertained in Washington U.S.A. It being so, at this stage it cannot be held that the applicant counterfeited those Dollars and nor it can be said that he had reason to believe them as forged/counterfeited.
4. ' As regards section 489(d), it is noted that it speaks about making or possessing instruments or materials for forging or counterfeiting currency notes or bank notes. On this point, the prosecution has relied upon the statement of P.W. Yaseen. It is alleged that the applicant is engaged in the business of printing and is running his business in the name and style of "Pass Enterprise" P.W.
5. Yaseen in his 161, Cr.P.C. Statement has mentioned that Muhammad Ayub Farooqui is the owner of this enterprise. He also added that the applicant is a partner in said business. Except the statement of P.W. Yaseen there is nothing on record to show that the applicant is actually a partner in the said enterprise. Even if it is assumed that he is a partner in said enterprise, yet, this fact by itself is not enough to refuse bail, as reliable evidence on the point of making, or possessing instrument, or material for forging or counterfeiting currency notes or bank notes, is still not available to the prosecution. Co-accused Fayyaz Khan and Muhammad Hanif have already been granted bail by the trial Court and there is hardly any significant difference between the case of applicant and that of co-accused Muhammad Hanif. The case of the applicant falls within the scope of further inquiry.
6. Accordingly, bail is granted to the applicant in the sum of Rs,1,00,000 (one lac) with two sureties each being of Rs,50,000 (fifty thousand) and P.R. Bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court.