ORDER SHEET

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH BENCH AT SUKKUR

C.P No. D-232 of 2016

 

Date

               Order with signature of Judge

 

For Katcha Peshi.

 

19-05-2016

 

Mr. Ajeebullah Junejo, advocate for the petitioner a/w the petitioner.

Mr. Abdul Karim Luhrani, SPP NAB (Sukkur).

Mr. Mian Mumtaz Rabbani, learned D.A.G.

.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-

            Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in the same reference bearing No. 25 of 2015 (State v/s Abdul Majeed Soomro and others), the main accused, namely, Abdul Majeed Soomro has been granted ad-interim bail by this court vide order dated 03.05.2016 passed in C.P No. D-198/2016, he however requests that the petitioner in the instant matter, otherwise, has not been assigned any direct role in the alleged commission of the offence, who is regularly attending the trial court and no more required for the investigation by the NAB authorities, therefore, his ad-interim bail may be confirmed in the similar terms. It has been further stated that out of 17 witnesses, 15 witnesses have already been examined in the subject reference and no useful purpose will be served if the ad-interim bail granted by this court is recalled. In support of his contentions, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed on record the copy of order dated 03.05.2016 passed in C.P No. D-198/2016.

            Learned SPP NAB (Sukkur) does not seriously controvert such position, however, he submits that petitioner may be directed to attend the learned trial court regularly without fail.

            Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case as elaborated in the order dated 03.05.2016 passed in C.P No. D-198/2016, we are of the opinion that petitioner has not been assigned any substantive role in the reference furnished by NAB authorities regarding commission of alleged offence, therefore, no useful purpose will be served if the ad-interim bail granted to the petitioner vide order dated 25.01.2016 is recalled. Moreover the petitioner has never misused the concession of ad-interim pre-arrest bail during the trial and the trial is almost concluded. Accordingly, ad-interim pre-arrest bail granted to the petitioner vide order 25.01.2016 is confirmed under similar terms as contained in said order. However, the petitioner is directed to attend the trial court regularly without fail, failing which the trial court shall be at liberty to proceed against the petitioner in accordance with law.

 

 

                                                                                                  Judge

                                                                      Judge

Abdul Salam/P.A