' The facts pertaining to this case are very interesting and disclose a dare devil master plan which resulted in colossal financial loss running into crores of rupees to the Government Treasury. It is, therefore, necessary to refer to these facts in some detail.
' A fake Divisional Development Authority was created by one Sanaullah allay Aslam Shah. The said Authority withdrew a sum of Rs, 2.76 crore from Bahawalpur Government Treasury. This fact came to light on 31st March 1977, when the Finance Secretary, Punjab, on telephone informed the Commissioner, Bahawalpur Division of the said fraud. He further told him that the District Accounts Officer, Mr. Rabbani should also be sent for. The Commissioner sent a written report to the D. I. G., Bahawalpur. When all this happened, the Personal Assistant to the Commissioner told him that the Manager of National Bank of Pakistan had informed him that some Government Department had withdrawn crores of rupees from the Bank and the office of that Department was in the Satellite Town. The incharge of the office was seen moving about in a Toyota Car No, KCD 1985. The Commissioner at once sent for the Assistant Commissioner and the D. S. P., Headquarters Bahawalpur, directed them to trace out that car and to carry out a raid on the office in the Satellite Town. In the meantime someone from the Bank came to the Commissioner's office and informed him that the aforesaid car was seen parked in the vicinity of the District Courts. The Commissioner also informed the D. I. G', Bahawalpur and then a party consisting of the Commissioner, his Personal Assistant and the D. I. G. Went after the car. The Commissioner also took with him an A. S. L and a couple of foot-constables in a jeep. On reaching the District Courts premises they found the car parked there and three men were sitting inside the car. The Bank representative pointed towards one Sanaullah alias Aslam Shah. He was put under arrest. The D. I. G. Left for Satellite Town. The Commissioner took into possession the car and also detained Sanaullah alias Aslam Shah and three of his other companions. Two suit-cases were recovered from the car at the instance of Sanaullah, which contained currency notes of the value of Rs, 41,00,000. (forty-one lacs). The money was counted in the presence of the Assistant Commissioner and Sardar Muhammad Aslam Khan, General Assistant. Sanaullah confessed that be had withdrawn the said amount fraudulently.
He further confessed to have created Divisional Development Authority which had drawn a sum of Rs, 2.76 crores. He also named other persons as his accomplices including the present petitioner.
About the petitioner he disclosed that he was working as Deputy Director, Divisional Development Authority in Multan. Similarly, one Abdur Rashid of State Bank of Pakistan, Shahid Sultan Superintendent Federal Development Authority and Intizar Ali alias Munir ware also stated to be a party to this fraud. The aforesaid facts I have taken from an unattested copy of the special report attached as Annexure "A" to this petition.
' It was under these circumstances that a case was registered against number of persons including the petitioner under different sections of the Pakistan Penal Code as well as rule 49 of the Defence of Pakistan Rules.
2. The petitioner applied for bail after arrest to the Tribunal, but the Tribunal by his order dated 22- 6-1977 refused to admit him to bail. Thereafter he filed this petition.
3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner In the first Instance requested for bail only on medical grounds. I called for a report from the Medical Officer and according to the report the petitioner was suffering from no ailment and "was being looked after in the Jail properly".
' Learned counsel after going through the report gave up the plea of ill health and wanted to argue this petition on merits. The request was allowed by me. I thereafter heard Rana Muhammad Samar at full length and sent for the record pertaining to this case which was brought by Kh. Muhammad Tufail, Superintendent of Police, Crimes Branch, who at present is incharge of the investigation of this case.
' On merits learned counsel submitted that there was no evidence against the petitioner except the bare statement of the co-accused which in law was the weakest evidence and could not be relied upon. Great emphasis was laid on the fact that some of the co-accused of the petitioner had already been admitted to bail; some by the Tribunal and others by this Court. Relying on Ahmad v.
State (1) learned counsel argued that the case of the petitioner is at par with those who have already been admitted to bail, hence he too was entitled to the same concession.
' It was next contended that the offence under section 420, P. P. C. Was (1) 1977 P Cr. L J 338 bailable, regarding other offences, learned counsel submitted that none of them was punishable either with death or life imprisonment, the petitioner as such was entitled to the concession of bail.
' Learned counsel further submitted that the prosecution has not yet put in the challan in the Court ; that was also a ground for bail. In support of this he relied on Muhammad Zikarlya v. State (1) and Allah Ditta v. State (2).
' Last of all, it was submitted that the petitioner has been sent to the judicial lock-up and as such no useful purpose will be served in keeping him behind the bars indefinitely.
4. Bail was opposed by the learned counsel for the State.
5. To begin with the investigation was with the local police. Later on, it was entrusted to the Superintendent of Police, Crimes Branch, Kh. Muhammad Tufail. According to him the petitioner was the "sole brain behind the whole show". It was he who was managing the whole affair and had the "remote control" with him. It was submitted that the petitioner utilised the services of his other "comrades", whom he used to appoint off and on whenever and wherever their services were required. The Superintendent of Police further submitted that though the petitioner bad been sent to the judicial lock-up and some recoveries had been made from him, yet substantial amount is to be recovered at his instance and there was reliable evidence against the petitioner to connect him with the alleged crime.
' It was submitted that the case of the petitioner was distinguishable from those accused who had already been admitted to bail and that in case the petitioner is out on bail, the investigation is bound to be jeopardized.
6. I have considered the submissions made by both sides. The mere fact that the petitioner has been remanded to judicial custody is no A ground to admit him to bail. Similarly the fact that the other accused have been bailed out is also no ground to admit the petitioner to bail as a matter of right, because he has got to make out his own case for bail. I also do not find much force in the remaining contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner.
7. After hearing the Superintendent of Police, Crimes Branch, who has brought the necessary record, I am of the view that the case of the petitioner is distinguishable from those who have already been admitted to bail. Similarly, the decisions cited by the learned counsel at the Bar are not applicable to this case. It is not one of those cases where challan could be submitted within the prescribed time. Nevertheless, the Superintendent of Police submitted that he is doing his level best to finalise the investigation.
It makes no difference if the offences of which the petitioner has been charged are not punishable with death or life imprisonment. Though the quantum of sentence plays an important role in determining the question of bail, nevertheless that is not the only criterion. The other important factors to be considered simultaneously are the conduct of the accused, how, why and under what circumstances the crime was committed and the (1) 1969 P Cr. L J 356 (2) 1976 P Cr. L J 52 loss or damage resulting from such a crime either to an individual or to the public at large or the Exchequer.
8. This is a unique case of its own nature. The whole thing was planned in such a fool proof manner as to exclude the remotest possibility of a leakage. The plan was executed by a well-organised racket operating in different Government departments under self-styled Government officers.
The fraud in this case runs into crores of rupees and I am inclined to agree with the Superintendent of Police, Crimes Branch that with due progress of investigation some more startling facts may come to light.
9. For the foregoing reasons I am not inclined to admit the petitioner to bail. The application is accordingly dismissed.