PESHAWAR, July 1: A local court has denied bail to head of a non-governmental organisation charged with misappropriating around Rs70 million by deceiving dozens of his employees as well as people affected by flood and conflict.

The court of additional district and sessions judge, Liaqat Khan Marwat, dismissed bail petition filed by the accused, Nadir Khan, observing that he was not entitled to the concession of bail.

Earlier, the bail petition of the accused was also dismissed by the concerned judicial magistrate, Danish Khan Afridi.

The accused, who is chairman of Pak Community Development Organisation, is charged in an FIR registered by the Federal Investigation Agency (FIA) under section 419, 420, 468 and 471 of Pakistan Penal Code. The case was registered on the complaint of Noor Mohammad Afridi and 15 other employees of the said organisation.

A large number of affected persons also visited the Judicial Complex demanding that they should be returned their money.

Advocate Arif Jan appeared for the complainants and contended that six other office-bearers of the said NGO had also been charged in the case but they had been absconding.

He stated that the complainants had also recorded their statements before the magistrate under section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. He added that the accused had deceived hundreds of affected persons and did not deserve any leniency. The petitioner's counsel contended that the complainants were never employees of the petitioner and they had signed a form that they would join the organisation as volunteers. He added that the petitioner had never received any money from them in the name of security. He added that if at all any misappropriation took place, it was by the complainants.

The complainants alleged that the accused had set up the NGO and hired services of around 325 persons for carrying out relief activities in flood-hit districts of Nowshera, Charsadda and Swat. They alleged that the accused had received a sum of Rs10,000 from each of these employees on the pretext of security deposit and had promised that the said amount would be returned.