Case Details

Citation(s)
2026 SLG 2229 2026 SLD 2229 = 2026 PCRLJ 938
Sindh High Court
Criminal Bail Applications Nos. 1846, 1864 and 2036 of 2025, decided on 28th August, 2025.
Presented By: Zafar Ahmed Rajput and Miran Muhammad Shah, JJ
Amir Nawaz Waraich for Applicant (in Criminal Bail Application No. 1846 of 2025).        Saqib Soomro for Applicant (in Criminal Bail Application No. 1864 of 2025).        Ali Akbar Poonawala for Applicant (in Criminal Bail Application No. 2036 of 2025).        Dur Muhammad Shah, D.A.G. for the State.        Munawar Ali for the Complainant.

HYDER ALI and others---Applicants

VERSUS

The STATE through DAG---Respondent

Law: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)

Section: 498A, 498

Law: Penal Code (XLV of 1860)

Section: 409, 420, 468, 471, 34

 (a) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) S. 498-A---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 409, 420, 468, 471 & 34---Criminal breach of trust by public servant, cheating and dishonestly inducing someone to deliver property, forgery for the purpose of cheating, use of a forged document as genuine, common intention---Ad-interim pre-arrest bail, recalling of---Allegations against the petitioner HA was that he being Ex-Branch Manager along with his other accused persons embezzled and misappropriated bank funds to the tune of Rs. 22,093,210/=---Prima facie, it appeared from the record that applicant HA by abusing his branch managerial position fraudulently and deceitfully prepared and issued fake request letter, dated 28.03.2024; encashed prematurely a TDR made encashment of cheques received in Branch on account of tax payment and siphoned out the same by various internal/ customer accounts, which acts of the said applicant, inter alia, fell within the ambit of "criminal breach of trust by banker", "forgery for the purpose of cheating" and "using as genuine a forged document which was known to be forged", punishable under Ss.409/468/471, P.P.C.---Said applicant appeared to be the beneficiary of alleged crime proceeds in collusion with his friend, absconding accused---Applicant had not been able to point out any special feature of the case entitling him to grant of extra ordinary concession of pre-arrest bail---Accused approaching the Court of law for grant of anticipatory bail was required to show that he was falsely implicated for extraneous consideration and there were ulterior motives behind his apprehended arrest---Accused person becomes entitled for this concession on fulfillment of those conditions---Applicant had remained unable to persuade that he had no concern with the alleged offence---Hence, in the instant case the pre-requisites for such concession i.e. malice and ulterior motives either on the part of the complainant or the police were conspicuously missing---From the tentative assessment of the evidence on record, it appeared that the prosecution had sufficient material against the applicant to connect him with the…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register