1. ' WAHID BUX BROHI, J.--- An applicant Sher Dil Khoso has been arrested for an offence punishable under sections 420, 467 and 471/109, P.P.C., arising out of F.I.R. No,29 of 1999, dated 31-7-1999 of Police Station F.I.A., C.B.C., Karachi. He approached Special Court (Offences in Bank) Sindh, Karachi for bail but his application was dismissed on 17-11-1999, he has, therefore, moved a similar application in this Court.
2. ' Brief facts of the case as gathered from the F.I.R. Are that Messrs Naeem Shaheed Cotton and Oil (Pvt.) Limited is maintaining account with Habib Bank Limited, Ubauro Branch, District Ghotki. It is alleged that, while issuing the cheque book in favour of the said account-holder, a cheque bearing No,25841968 was detached from the same by someone and subsequently, the same was presented on 10-11-1998 by two unknown young men at 9-00 a.m. For Rs,8,50,000. On that day complainant Kandero Khan Dal, Manager of Bank was on leave and in his absence Mr. Nisar Ahmed Thaheem second officer was officiating as Manager, but he reached late at about 9-25 a.m. And in his absence applicant Sher Dil Khoso, the C.D. Incharge attended those persons. The cash available in the bank was insufficient to make the payment of cheque as such a cheque for Rs,8,50,000 drawn on National Bank of Pakistan against Account No,CD-70 maintained by the Habib Bank Limited, Ubauro Branch, District Ghotki was issued under the signature of Nisar Ahmed Thaheem and applicant Sher Dil Khoso and handed over to the persons, who presented the first mentioned cheque. Since the applicant was not authorised to operate the National Bank's account, this draw- back was pointed out by National Bank but they were requested to honour the cheque with an undertaking that the Manager was on leave and on his return they would forward the authority letter for incorporating the signature of applicant Sher Dil Khoso as an authorised signatory to operate the said bank account. In consequence thereof, those unknown persons collected the cash from National Bank at about 11-00 a.m. Subsequently, on the same day when Muhammad Iqbal, Director of Messrs Naeem Shaheed Cotton and Oil (Pvt.) Limited visited the branch and informed that the cheque No,25841968 was missing from the cheque book, the concerned officer told him that the cheque has already been encashed in the morning. On examining the cheque, it was found that the signatures thereon were forged. The Manager, Habib Bank Limited, Ubauro Branch, District Ghotki namely Kandero Khan subsequently, made a written complaint on the basis of which the instant F.I.R. Was registered.
3. We have heard learned counsel for applicant and learned standing counsel for the State. Learned counsel for applicant submitted that the incident had taken place on 10-11-1998 but the F.I.R. Was registered on 31-7-1999 after lapse of more than eight months, this exorbitant delay makes the case doubtful. He further, contended that the prosecution is relying on a cheque issued by applicant Sher Dil Khoso for Rs,6,50,000 allegedly in lieu of the fraudulent loss caused by him, but in fact the said cheque was got signed by him under duress exerted by Muhammad Iqbal the Managing Director of the factory, Nisar Ahmed Thaheem, the co-accused, Faiz Muhammad the Official Chief of Habib Bank Ltd., Sukkur, and Muhammad Ashraf, Staff Officer, Habib Bank Ltd., Sukkur, whereafter he approached the police but his F.I.R. Was not recorded and then he filed direct complaint in the Court of IInd Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ghotki. Learned counsel also referred to the first class suit filed by applicants in the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Ubauro against some of the aforementioned persons and the other authorities of Habib Bank Limited. Wherein defendants in suit have been restrained from recovery of the alleged amount of Rs,8,50,000 from the applicant in any coercive manner till disposal of the suit. Further, he referred to F.I.R. No,57 of 1999 lodged at Police Station Ubauro, Ghotki by Muhammad lqbal the Managing Director of the said cotton factory on 26-4-1999 pertaining to the same incident and submitted that the applicant is being made liable to double prosecution. He pointed out that the applicant is on interim bail in the said case. He submitted that the applicant has been falsely implicated by Muhammad Iqbal the Managing Director of the factory with the connivance of the colleagues of applicant. He urged that the detachment of cheque on the part of applicant could not be .Proved during he investigation, therefore, he is not liable for the same. He also submitted that the contents of the F.I.R.
4. Do not make out an offence under section 467, P.P.C. While the remaining offences are bailable.
5. Regarding the abscondence of the applicant, he relied on PLD 1963 SC 478 and submitted that bail is right of accused person in a bailable offence. He also relied on 1986 PCr.LJ 2510 and 1992 PCr.LJ 2127.
6. ' On the other hand learned State Counsel submitted that the applicant at one stage confessed his guilt and in token thereof issued the cheque in the sum of Rs,6,50,000 in order to make good the fraudulent loss caused to the bank. He pointed out that the applicant was not authorised to operate the account at National Bank of Pakistan and despite the objection of the National Bank he insisted on honouring of the cheque issued by him and thereby the amount was drawn from National Bank by the unknown presenter of the forged cheque. He further submitted that ordinarily in normal course bank authorities have to arrange the cash at their own level by drawing a cheque through their staff but an unusual procedure was adopted by handing over such bearer cheque to the unknown presenter of the first mentioned forged cheque which undoubtedly demonstrated the complicity and active role of applicant in commission of the aforesaid fraud. He submitted that the civil litigation would not entitle the applicant to grant of bail.
7. ' We have carefully considered these contentions. Main allegation appearing in this case is that the applicant had drawn cheque on National Bank under his signature in absence of the Manager, who was actually authorised to do so, and fun her by taking unusual and extraordinary interest in the matter handed over the bearer cheque to those unknown persons who succeeded in collecting the cash of Rs,8,50,000. Although it was contended by the learned counsel that the applicant was authorised to do so and the encashment Was done in good faith but this explanation does not appear to be a convincing one. Secondly, the Bank Officers are commonly well-skilled in marking difference in between the forged signature and the original one, but in the instant case when first forged cheque was presented the applicant had overlooked this aspect. When a huge amount is involved the risk becomes higher and the concerned officers of bank always exercise utmost caution but in the instant case such caution seems to be lacking. As regards the civil litigation, we agree with the State Counsel that mere pendency of a suit and an interim order of the civil Court restraining the recovery of Rs,8,50,000 from the applicant would not by itself make out a ground for grant of bail. The other F.I.R. Relates to a case registered at Police Station Unbar and the result of investigation thereof is not before this Court but benefit arising out of it, if any, can be claimed by the applicant at the trial. In this context the learned counsel, however, sought support from the authority 1986 PCr.LJ 2510, wherein pre- arrest bail was allowed in view of the fact that earlier, another F.I.R. Was registered showing almost the names of the same persons who were alleged to have been cheated. This authority pertains to a case under section 420, P.P.C. Which is bailable, whereas the case herein has been registered for offences under sections 467 and 471/109, P.P.C. In addition to section 420, P.P.C. And the offence under section 467, P.P.C. Is not bailable. Nonetheless the circumstances discussed earlier make out a prima facie against the applicant, therefore, the aforesaid authority will not help the applicant. As regards the case reported in 1992 PCr.LJ 2127 the bail applications in said case were dismissed and it was observed that deeper examination of the evidence and elaborate determination of the merits is to be avoided while deciding the bail application. The contentions raised by learned counsel indeed, call for deeper examination of the evidence which therefore, cannot be entertained in the light of this authority. In the case reported as PLD 1963 SC 478, it was, inter alia, held that in case of a bailable offence the accused has indefeasible right to grant of bail. With due respects, all the offences in the instant case are not bailable, therefore, the aforesaid principle would not advance the case of the applicant. Moreover, the ground of delay in recording of F.I.R. Is not always to be resolved against the case of prosecution for the purpose of bail and since on the whole the circumstances discussed above clearly make out a prima facie case, therefore, on this ground alone bail cannot be allowed.
8. ' In view of the forging discussion, the bail plea is without merits, the application is, therefore, dismissed. These are the reasons of the short order, dated 3-12-1999.