' Applicant Samuel Tenant seeks bail in F.I.R. No,10 of 1998, registered with FIA-CBC, Karachi, under section 420/ 468/471/109, P.P.C. Read with section 5(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947.
2. On receipt of an information in writing from Michael North, Detective Constable of City of London Police, Fraud Squad Wood Street Police Station, 37-Wood Street, London EC.2 P.2 NQ, vide letter No,199-97, dated 20-8-1997, addressed to PI Interpol Islamabad, Inquiry No,62 of 1997 was conducted by FIA-CBC,. Karachi and it was revealed that about 15 forged bank guarantees, described in the F.I.R., worth US $ 10.000 (M) in favour of M/s. Tacoma Group Limited, Inc., 3-Christina Centre, 201-North Walnat Street, Wilmington, Delaware 1980, USA, purported to have been issued by National Bank of Pakistan, President Secretariat, Karachi, with the active connivance of officials of National Bank of Pakistan and others had been subsequently faxed by the applicant to co- accused Dr. Muhammad Haroon Rasheed, President and Chief Executive Officer of Tacoma Group Ltd. The case of prosecution further is that other forged tank guarantee of US $ 7.500(M) purported to have been issued by Habib Bank Ltd., Regional Headquarters, Karachi was prepared with the active connivance of officials of Habib Bank Ltd., and others and faxed to co-accused Dr. Muhammad Haroon Rasheed at London by the applicant. Besides, 8 another forged Dollar Deposit Certificates amounting to US $ 10.000(M) purported to have been issued by Habib Bank Ltd., Regional Headquarters, Federation House, Clifton, Karachi and Cloth Market Branches respectively with the connivance of bank officials and others faxed by the applicant to co-accused Dr. Muhammad Haroon Rasheed at London.
3. On the orders of competent authority the above case was registered against the applicant and others.
4. It is contended by Mr. Rana M. Shamim, the learned counsel for the applicant, that the applicant has been involved in this case falsely and there is no evidence to show that he has committed forgery or cheating by either preparing or utilizing the forged bank guarantees. According to him the mere allegation that certain documents were faxed from Avari Tower Hotel, Karachi to London cannot connect the applicant with the alleged offence as the prosecution has not been able to show any evidence that the same were faxed by the applicant himself. It is also a matter of record that the applicant has not cheated the bank and the alleged forged bank guarantees were never encased as such neither any loss has occurred nor the applicant has obtained any illegal gains. He next argued that the alleged offences at the most are punishable with 7 years and do not fall within prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C., as such bail is the right, whereas refusal is an exception.
He went on arguing that only photo copies of the documents have been produced against the applicant which cannot be considered to be valid piece of evidence and whatever the evidence against the applicant is collected is in the shape of documents which are exclusively in the hands of prosecution and cannot be tempered with by the applicant, as such the allegation against the applicant requires further inquiry. He lastly contended, that the applicant is a British National and is an agent of International Firm Aval Guarantee Limited, having an assets of more than US $ 2 Billion and is a respectable businessm an of high repute and having so many assignments in Pakistan would never abscond. In support he has relied upon the case-law reported in 1983 PCr.LJ 2010; 1995 SCM R 170; 1996 PCr.LJ 1279 and PLD 1988 Karachi 502.
5. On the other side Mr. Mubarak Hussain Siddiqui, the learned D.A.-G., however, opposed but could not controvert the contentions of the applicant's counsel. Though he produced so many documents but still was unable to refer any direct evidence connecting the applicant with the commission of offence. He, on the instructions of the Investigating Officer, who was also present in the Court, said that sufficient time would still be required to complete investigation against the applicant.
6. The F.I.R., on the face of it, shows that the occurrence had taken place in 1997 and it was on 30-4- 1998 that the matter was reported for the first time. Information in writing with regard to the 15 forged bank guarantees was for the first time furnished on 20-8-1997 and inquiry was commenced on 1-10-1997, but the case was not registered till the abovementioned date and for such belated registration of case no plausible explanation has been furnished. The applicant was arrested on 30-4-1998 and interim challan was produced on 15-5-1998, but as of yet no final challan has been produced. The contention of the learned D.A.-G. That the investigation still continues and the prosecution requires some more time to conclude the same and put up final challan and for the present no convincing evidence has been collected against the applicant, would be sufficient ground to hold the case to be of further inquiry as contemplated under subsection (2) of section 497, Cr.P.C.
7. A Division Bench of the Lahore High Court in the case of M.A. Rashid v. The State, reported in 1996 PCr.LJ 1279 admitted the accused to bail on the ground that he had not signed on forged cheque or document and no financial loss was caused to the bank by any act or omission on his part. The Humble Supreme Court in the case of Saeed Ahmed v. The State, reported in 1995 SCM R 170, granted bail to the accused mainly on the contention that his case entirely depended upon the documentary evidence which was in possession of prosecution and no possibility of tempering with such evidence existed. In the case of Abdul Hayuzzafar v. The State, reported in 1983 PCr.L1 2010, it has been held that Courts are not supposed to keep in view only maximum sentence provided under the relevant law, rather to see what punishment is likely to be awarded ultimately to an accused in particular circumstances. The fact that amount misappropriated by accused public servant was sufficiently large should be no ground for refusing bail and proposed evidence adduced at trial comprising documentary evidence and its possibility of being tampered or otherwise is to be taken into consideration. This Court in the case of Moulvi Abdul Hameed v. The State, reported in PLD 1988 Kar. 502(a) has held that in case of forgery the Courts cannot order for prosecution on the basis of the photocopies of the documents. Even otherwise all the alleged offences are not punishable within the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C. In such cases, it is well-settled principle of law that grant of bail is right whereas refusal is an exception. The applicant being an .Gent of international reputed firm, having so many business assignments in Pakistan is an additional ground for grant of bail.
8. For the foregoing we are of the considered view that the allegation against the applicant requires further inquiry as contemplated under section 497(2), Cr.P.C., and for the present there are no reasonable grounds to believe that he is guilty of the alleged offences. Accordingly, we grant bail to the applicant. He shall be released on furnishing solvent surety in the sum of Rs,10,000,000 (Rupees ten million) with PR Bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Nazir of this Court subject to deposit of passport and identity card with him. Irrespective of this, the applicant's name be included in the Exit Control List (ECL) till the disposal of main case pending before the trial Court.