1. The applicant has sought bail in Crime No.223 of 2000 registered with Police Station Ferozabad, Karachi under sections 420/406/34, P.P.C.
2. The brief facts of the case are that the Deputy Superintendent of Police received a written complaint dated 21-6-2000 from Bolan Bank Limited, Tariq Road Branch, PECHS, Karachi, which reads as follows:-- "Dear Sir, Complaint against -Messrs Chanal International for the recovery of an amount of Rs.34,70,000. The above is partnership account of Messrs Faisal Khawaja and Mustaqeem Khan. They deposited 10 foreign currency drafts of total amount Branch for collection. The amount of tcs.34,70,000 was credited in their account and on 15-1-2000, the partners withdrew this amount from Bank New York, ABN Amro Bank, NV through whom these drafts were collected who informed us that the subject drafts were forged. We, therefore, request you to please take up the matter with the Partners Messrs Faisal, Khawaja and Mustaqeem Khan for the refund of the amount of forged draft immediately.
3. Please also note that they are not co-operating with us."
4. On 24-6-2000 the F. I. R. Has been registered under sections 420/406/34, P.P.C. For cheating and misappropriation of Rs.34,70,000 by the Manager, Bolan Bank Limited, Tariq Road Branch and subsequently, the above named applicant has been sent up to face trial before the Presiding Officer, Special Court (Offences in Banks) Sindh at Karachi under sections 420 and 406/34, P.P.C.
5. The above named applicant had also filed a Bail Application No.911 of 2000 before this. Court, prior to the submission of challan of the case and on 31-10-2000, learned counsel for the applicant did not press the bail application, which was accordingly disposed of alongwith listed application and after submission of challan before the Presiding Officer, Special Court (Offences in. Bank), Sindh at Karachi the applicant/accused moved an application but remained without success hence this bail application.
6. It has been contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that the applicant could not be tried under sections 420/406, P.P.C. Jointly. He has further submitted that the alleged offences are not punishable with death or life imprisonment or 10 years' R.I. And are not covered by prohibitory clause of section 497(1), Cr.P.C. He has further canvassed before us that the Bank employees are also involved in the crime and Bank official had- to verify on receiving such cheque and the signatures could have been sent to Handwriting Expert and in that event benefit of doubt goes to the applicant at the bail stage. He has further submitted that applicant has not issued any cheque nor signed and no property had been entrusted to him and further--more he had submitted that the applicant is innocent and is entitled to the grant of bail.
7. PLD 1983 SC (AJ&K) 8; 1969 SCM R 233; 1983 PCr.LJ 12; 1968 SCM R 1308; 1994 M LD 1694; 1991 PCr.LJ 371 and 1985 PCr.LJ 890.
8. On the other hand, Mr. Habib Ahmed, learned Assistant Advocate-General for the State has conceded that as far sections 420 and 406, P.P.C. Are concerned, these are not applicable in the instant case. He has drawn our attention on section 389, P.P.C. And emphasized that the offence being scheduled offence, the applicant has committed an offence liable under section 489-B, P.P.C. Which offence is punishable with imprisonment of life or death or for a term, which may extend to 10 years- and shall also be liable to fine. He has further submitted that the applicant is very much involved in the offence and opposed the grant of bail to the applicant.
9. Mr. F.M. Javed, learned counsel appearing for the Bank has adopted the arguments of learned A.A.- G.
10. Learned counsel for the applicant in rebuttal invited our attention on the First Schedule and Second Schedule of the Offences in Respect of Banks (Special Courts) Ordinance, 1984 and submitted that section 489-B, P.P.C. Is not a schedule offence and the applicant has been challaned under sections 420/406/34, P.P.C.
11. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have examined anxiously the material on record. Admittedly the applicant has been challaned under sections 420/406/34, P.P.C. And the case of the applicant entirely depends upon documentary evidence and all the documents are in possession of the prosecution and there is no possibility of tampering with such evidence existed.
12. As far as section 489-B P.P.C. Is concerned, it is not applicable in the present case and at the moment the applicant has been arrayed as one of the accused for an offence triable under sections 420/406/34, P.P.C. Which are not covered by the prohibitory clause of section 497(1), Cr.P.C. The involvement of the applicant in commission of offence is yet to be established at the time of trial and in the circumstances the basic principle is bail not jail and since the offences are not falling under the prohibitory clause of section 497(1), Cr.P.C. The applicant is entitled to the grant of bail. In this regard reference can be made to the case of Saeed Ahmed v. The State (1995 SCM R 170) and Tariq Bashir and 5 others v. The State (PLD 1995 SC 34).
13. Accordingly, the applicant is admitted to bail on his furnishing solvent surety in the sum of Rs.35,00,000 (Rupees Thirty--five Lacs) and PR Bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.