' A case under section 419/420/467/468/471/477/47'7-A/409/109, P.P.C. Read with section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 was registered against the petitioner and others as they allegedly misappropriated an amount of Rs,88,32,738 by preparing bogus vouchers and making false entries in the account books. The case was reported by Mukhtar Ahmad D.A. C.M.A. (CO)
D.S.P./D.S.O.P. Fund Office of the C.M.A. (RC), Rawalpindi at Police Station F.I.A., Crime Circle, Rawalpindi vide F.I.R. No,31, dated 9-12-1996. The role played by the petitioner was that he made certain false entries in the DV register and D.P sheets marked against DV No,254 to 261 of May, 1996.
He also made certain false entries in the D.P. Sheets bearing DV No,99 and 100 of June, 1996 and forged certain other entries. The part played by the petitioner facilitated disbursement and preparation of bogus cheques thereby causing loss to the Government Treasury. The allegation against the petitioner is that he operated with a gang engaged in forging the Government papers and to deprive the Government Treasury of huge amounts by disbursing them under the fake names. The main beneficiary was one of the co-accused namely Aziz Akhtar.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner had been implicated falsely in this case as he was not posted in the "Officers Fund Section" where the alleged fraud and misappropriation had taken place; that at the relevant time, he was allegedly working in JOC Fund Section located 400 yards away from the section which was deprived of the money through bogus cheques and forged record. It was, therefore, urged that the petitioner was wrongly nominated although he had nothing to do with the tampering with the record of the section where he was not posted during the days of occurrence. It was also submitted that the petitioner being a Government employee is entitled to bail as there is no likelihood of his absconsion; that mere fact that a huge amount of the Government treasury' is involved in the case would not disentitle the petitioner to the right of bail particularly when he has not been linked with the section where the fraud had taken place. Lastly, it was contended that detention of the petitioner in the prison is not likely to advance the prosecution case because nothing is to be recovered from him after he had been sent to the judicial lock-up, and that the investigation is being prolonged on account of the involvement of the other accused for whidt the petitioner should not be allowed to suffer. The petitioner being a public servant, the sanction for his prosecution is yet awaited and keeping in view his alleged role, he has a case of further inquiry. To support the above points, reliance was placed on PLD 1969 Pesh. 49, titled PLJ 1974 Cr.C. (Lah.) 578, Ashiq Ali v. The State, 1977 PCr.LJ 676 (Lah.), 1978 SCMR 64 and 1995 MLD 1829.
3. The petition was opposed by the learned standing counsel for the State on the ground that the accused was nominated in the F.I.R. To have facilitated the fraud by making bogus entries in the relevant books; that the opinion of the Handwriting Expert was positive regarding the entries made by the petitioner in the relevant registers; that the investigation is already in progress against rest of the accused who were to be brought to the book as soon as possible; that the mere fact that the long time is to take for the conclusion of the investigation would not make a case of bail for the petitioner in view of the principle laid down in PLD 1987 Pesh. 161; that the recovery of some of the embezzled amount was effected from the brother of the petitioner at his instance which further linked him with the crime; and lastly the offence is punishable up to imprisonment for life and as such, the bail is not to be granted as a matter of routine in such offence.
4. I have considered the foregoing contentions and the authorities cited at the Bar. Each case has to stand on its own facts. In the instant case, the I A petitioner being a Government servant is involved in a case of misappropriation ro of the public money amounting to Rs,88,32,738 on account of bogus entries made by him in the account books to help a gang which was operating to carry out such embezzlement. The entries made by him in the official record have been identified to be in his hand by the Handwriting Expert. In such a situation, this fact cannot be easily ignored that the petitioner was an instrumental in causing huge financial loss to the Government treasury after joining hands with a gang of embezzlers. The offence of embezzlement of public money is punishable up to imprisonment for life and as such, would fall within the prohibitory clause. The mere fact that the petitioner is a public servant and there is no likelihood of his absconsion cannot be taken into account at this stage. It is enough to say that there is no extenuating circumstance so as to release the petitioner on bail as he is involved in an offence falling within the prohibitory clause. The petition is accordingly dismissed.