' WAHID BUX BROHI, J.---Applicant Khan Muzaffar Khan alias Kaloo has been booked for an offence punishable under sections 420/468/471/477-A/34, P.P.C. Read with section 5(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947.
2. The F.I.R. In this case incorporates the written complaint of Babu Amir Khan addressed to Deputy Director, F.1.A. Reads as follow: Subject:COMPLAINT UNDER SECITONS 406, 409, 419, 468, 471, P.P.C. Read with 5(2)-11 PCA, 1860.
Sir, ' It is respectfully submitted that I have come to know through reliable sources that, one Saifullah Niazi son of Jahan Khan Niazi, resident of House No.B-87, Subhani Road, New Mianwali Colony, Main Mangohopir Road, Karachi has applied for loan under Prime Minister Scheme in the year 1993.
That he opened an account in Habib Bank Limited, Pak Colony Branch, and said account was introduced by one Khan Muzaffar alias Kaloo, who is father-in-law of Mr. Saifullah Niazi. He submitted a promissory Note dated 7-2-1993, Hire Purchase Agreement dated 17-3-1993, and undertaking as required document alongwith photocopy of NIC.
2. That on the basis of said documents, the above said Bank has sanctioned Rs.13,12,287 and disbursed in the name of Saifullah Niazi and he purchased a Mercedes Bus from that amount.
3. That due to default in re-payment the Bank has filed a suit for recovery against said Saifullah Niazi, before Banking Court No.1 vide Suit No.1481 of 2001 which is pending trial before the Court.
4. That during the trial, one Khan Muzaffar alias Kaloo submitted an application before the Court, wherein he has submitted on oath that he has obtained loan with the collusion of Bank Manager of fictitious name.
5. That it is crystal clear from the contents of the application alongwith its supporting affidavit that a fraud has been committed by Saifullah Niazi and Khan Muzaffar alias Kaloo with the collusion with Bank Manager.
' It is, therefore, requested that legal action may kindly be taken against Saifullah Niazi and Khan Muzaffar, and investigate the matter according to law."
3. On the basis of F.I.R., investigation was taken up and amongstothers, applicant was arrested on 27-12-2002. On his pointation alleged Mercedes bus was recovered under seizure memo. Dated 3- 1-2003 and given in the Superdagi of one Mr. Sultan Ahmed Khan Officer of Habib Bank Limited.
4. We have heard learned counsel for applicant and learned Deputy Attorney-General and perused the material available on record.
5. Learned counsel for applicant submitted that a civil suit relating to this matter is pending in the Banking Court which has been filed by Habib Bank Limited against one Saifullah Niazi wherein a decree has been sought in the sum of Rs.20,89,600 and a prayer has also been made for the possession of vehicle in question. He argued that the applicant has been implicated in the criminal case falsely. Learned DAG opposed the bail on the ground that the material collected during investigation as also the version of applicant given in the Banking Court is sufficient to support the case of prosecution.
6. During the instant proceedings time was sought on behalf of applicant and copy of the plaint in suit. (Suit No.1481 of 2001), was filed alongwith copy of application under Order I rule 10, C.P.C.
Read.With sections 2 and 3 of Finance Ordinance, 2002 made by applicant Khan Muzaffar alias Katoo for impleading him as party. Copies of order dated 2-5-2002 passed by the said Court and affidavit sworn by applicant were also filed alongwith relevant documents.
7. The affidavit sworn by applicant Khan Muzaffar alias Kaloo in support of his application under Order I rule 10, C.P.C. Pertinently demonstrates the role played by the applicant. Para. 3 of the affidavit reads as under:-- "That I say in 1992 I have applied for loan, the Bank Manager of Habib Bank Mr. Afzal and Shafiq from Pak Colony Branch has allowed the loan to me on the name of fictitious person and handed over the vehicle."
8. It is further noted that in para. 4 of the affidavit, the applicant stated that he deposited money in the Bank but on the direction of Bank Manager he opened account in the name of Saifullah Khan and received the possession of vehicle in question. No doubt the above version of applicant was not approved by the Banking Court for joining him as a party to the suit and the application was dismissed observing that the applicant was a liar and could not be trusted as regards his statement made in the affidavit, but the fact remains that admittedly the applicant made a statement on oath that loan was obtained by him by opening account in the name of a fictitious person and in pursuance of his such act he succeeded in getting even possession of the vehicle which was ultimately recovered on his pointation.
9. On the whole there is ample evidence in the form of statement of witnesses and documentary evidence such as account opening form, document relating to transaction of loan and the affidavit of applicant himself sworn in the Banking Court, prima facie, connecting him with the offence. The bail plea in the circumstances cannot be sustained at this stage. Consequently, the bail application is dismissed. 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.