' RAJA MUHAMMAD KHURSHID KHAN, J.-These two petitions for leave, one by Ch. Muhammad Ismail, former Assistant Manager in the main Branch of the Azad Kashmir National Co-operative Bank, Mirpur (Petition No 5 of 1978) and the other by Ch. Fazal Elahi, Ch. Jahangir All and Ch. Nowsherwan Ali, Directors of Kalyal Industrial Co-operative Bank (Petition No, 7 of 1978) have been filed against an order of the Chief Justice of the Azad Jammu & Kashmir High Court by which the learned Chief Justice rejected the petitioners' application for bail.
' The petitioners were arrested on the night falling between 24th and 25th of December 1977, for allegedly committing offences under sections 419, 420, 406, 409, 467, 468 and 471 of the Penal Code and section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. The allegation against them in brief is that they had misappropriated and converted to their own use huge amount deposited by the depositors in the Banks. The petitioners had sought bail in the Court of Anti-Corruption Judge, Mirpur but their application was rejected on 1-1-1978. The petitioners; then challenged this order in the High Court but as this application was dismissed on 14-1-1978, they had filed these petitions for leave to appeal and also applied for bail.
3. Mr. B. A. Farooqi, the learned counsel for the petitioners presses for leave and bail mainly on the grounds : (i)That there remains nothing to be recovered from the petitioners ;
(ii) That they are in continuous custody for the last four months ; and
(iii) That the case made out by the prosecution does not prove their involvement in any of the alleged offences.
' In view of these facts, according to him, the discretion exercised by the High Court in refusing bail offends the basic principles governing the law of bails.
4. On the other hand, Mr. Rafique Mahmood, Additional Advocate-General opposes leave as well as bail on the grounds that- (i)the petitioners are also charged for having committed an offence under section 409, A. P. C.
Whose penalty in Azad Kashmir is transportation for life. Bail, therefore, cannot be asked for as a matter of right and the order of the High Court passed in proper exercise of the discretion needs no interference ; and
(ii) the bail was disallowed by the High Court mainly on the ground that it was premature and the matter could be taken up afresh after completion of the investigation.
5. We have given our considered thought to the question involved and are of the view that the order passed by the High Court does not warrant interference at this stage for the following reasons.
' The petitioners are also charged under section 4G9, A. P. C. The punishment provided in A. K. For this offence is transportation for life and an accused person in such cases normally cannot be released on bail. In these circumstances there appears no miscarriage of justice in the discretion exercised by the High Court in refusing bail so as to call for our interference.
' Adjudging the case from another angle, we come to the same con- elusion. In the present case at the time of the disposal of the bail B application, there was not sufficient material before the High Court to form its opinion one way or the other. Reference may be made to the judgment of the High Court wherein it is stated that :- "It is thus only after the investigation is completed that their bail question can be considered in the light of the results of the said investigation so as to determine whether on the basis of the results of the investigation the accused may or may not be enlarged on bail."
' The question of bail was thus left open and at our stage too, we have not any substantial material for deciding the application one way or the other. It is admitted at the bar that after completion of the investigation, the C petitioners have been now put to trial before the Anti-Corruption Judge, Mirpur. In view of this, we do not find any ground for grant leave. We are fortified in our view in a case having somewhat identical facts reported as 1958 SCMR 31. In that case, one Mst. Ummal Bano sought leave to appeal from an order passed by a learned Single Judge of the High Court of West Pakistan declining to grant bail to her son Nazar Ali Shah who had been apparently arrested in a case under section 395 of the Penal Code. The order sought to be challenged was only to the effect that the allegations made against the petitioner were serious in character "and the application for the bail should be filed after the challan is presented" so that exact position about the evidence against the applicant may be known. The learned Judge Mr. Justice S. A. Rahman seized with the matter refused to interfere in the order of the High Court and observed that : "Proper course for the petitioner would be to approach the High Court of West Pakistan again for bail."
' The learned counsel for the petitioners lastly relied on an unreported case of this Court captioned Ch. Muhammad Latif v. State. In that case. Ch. Muhammad Latif, a co-accused with the petitioners was granted bail by this Court. After discussing the facts of the case, it was observed that : "The part in the transaction attributed to the appellant is that he intentionally failed to take suitable actions to remedy such wrongs. There is no charge against the appellant that he himself misappropriated or embezzled any amount. According to the prosecution, the appellans abetted the offences under the Penal Code and also committed the offences of criminal misconduct as defined in section 5(1)(c) of Prevention of Corruption Act, in dishonestly and fraudulently allowing the Directors of the Banks in misappropriating or otherwise converting to their own use the amounts deposited in the Banks. In the case of the appellant, it is yet to be determined by the trial Court, in case he is prosecuted, whether his omission to perform his duties as Registrar of the Co- operative Department amounts to dishonestly and fraudulently allowing other persons in misappropriating or otherwise converting to their use Banks' money or not ? It is premature to express one's view one way or the other in this case at ' this stage. Otherwise too, it would not be proper to say as to whether the appellant could or could not be held as a privy to the main offences committed by the other accused for his failure to perform his official duties cast upon him under the Co-operative Act or the bye-laws."
' It would thus appear that different considerations not common to the case of the petitioners weighed in granting bail to Ch. Mohammad Latif. His case in fact has no similarity with the case of the present petitioners who unlike Ch. Mohammad Latif are roped in as main culprits in misappropriating amounts deposited in the banks. Their bail matter, as such, having no common feature with the case of Ch. Mohammad Latif has to be decided on the merit of their own case.
' The net result is that both the petitions fail which are hereby dismissed-The petitioners shall be informed of the result through Superintendent Jail.