IN
THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH BENCH AT SUKKUR
C.P.No.D- 3222 of 2016.
A/wC.P.Nos.D- 4409of 2016.
C.P.Nos.D-
1657, 1660, 1661, 1697, 1698, 1743,
1744 of 2019.
C.P.Nos.D – 119, 291 and 448 of 2020.
|
Date |
Order with signature of Judge |
Before:
Mr.JusticeNazar
Akbar
Mr.Justice Muhammad
Faisal Kamal Alam
-
Petitioners:
1. Abdul
Aziz
In
C.P.No.D-3222/2016. Through Mr.Qurban
Ali Malano
Advocate.
2. MuniorAhmed Bullo
In
C.P.D – 4409/2017.
Sarfaraz
Ali Ghanghro
In
C.P.No.D- 291/2020
Ghulam
Mustafa Lashari
In
C.P.No.D-448/2020 Through
Mr.Mumtaz Ali Jehangir Lashari, Advocate,.
3. Nawab
In
C.P.No.D-1657/2019.
Khamiso
In
C.P.No.D-1697/2019
Abdul
Shakoor
In
C.P.No. D – 1743/2019
Muhammad
Hassan an anor
In
C.P.No. D – 1744/2019 ThroughMr.Amanullah
G. Malik
Advocate.
4. Himmat
Ali
In
C.P.No.D- 1660/2019.
Adnan
Ahmed
In
C.P.No. D-1661/2019
Danish
Noor
In
C.P.No.D – 1698/2019
Shabir
Ahmed Abbasi
In
C.P.No. D – 119/2020 ThroughMr.Shahid
Ali K.Memon Advocate.
Respondents.
NAB
through its Chairman
andors. Through
Mr.MuhammadZubair Malik Special Prosecutor.
Date of Hearing 09th
March, 2021.
O R D E R.
NAZAR
AKBAR, J- By this common order, we intend
to dispose of the above captioned constitutional petitions filed by the
petitioners Abdul Aziz Bullo, Sarfraz Ali Awan, Munir Ahmed Bullo, Nawab, Himat
Ali Soomro, Adnan Ahmed Qazi, KhamisoMazari, Danish Noor, Abdul Shakoor,
Muhammad Hassan, Nazir Ahmed, Shabbir Ahmed seeking pre-arrest bail in
Reference No.16 of 2019 while petitioners Ghulam Mustafa Lashari and Sarfaraz
Ali Ghanghro are seeking post arrest bail in same reference, pending
adjudication before the Accountability Court at Sukkur.
2. It is alleged that the petitioners/accused
officers/officials of District Accounts Office and Education Department have
withdrawn the excessive amount of salaries without any documentation or
mentioning the details in the service book though they were given chance to
produce the record of their respective period but they failed to do so,
therefore it has ben established that the officers and officials of District
Accounts Office in connivance with the employees of Education Department
TalukaKashmore have given loss of Rs.59,523,526/- to the Government exchequer and
after completing the investigation, the aforementioned reference was filed
against the petitioners/accused.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners mainly
contended that the petitioners have been implicated in this case by the NAB
authorities with malafide intention and ulterior motives; that no such loss has
been caused to the Government exchequer by the petitioners. Learned counsel for the petitioners after
arguing the matter at some length, submitted that though the allegations
leveled against the petitioners in the reference are false but inspite of that
they are ready to deposit an amount equivalent to the extent of loss allegedly
caused by them to Government exchequer.
4. Learned Special Prosecutor NAB assisted by
I.O has objected to the acceptance of such proposal even if the entire amount
is secured. He has contended that in one of the cases the Honourable Court has
disapproved this kind of concession at the bail stage. He has placed on record
the statement showing individual liability of each petitioner, which is taken
on record.
5. We have heard arguments advanced by the
learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.
6. The material available on record, reveals
that the documentary evidence has already been collected by the Investigating
Officer and there is no apprehension of tampering with the evidence as all the
P.Ws are official witnesses. The reference has already been filed against the
petitioners before the Accountability Court at Sukkur, where in the case the
charge has been framed and some of the PWs have already been examined by the
trial Court. The petitioners are
regularly attending this Court as well as trial Court and did not misuse the
concession of interim pre-arrest bail extended to them. The petitioners are
voluntarily ready to deposit the liability amount as leveled against each one
of them in the impugned Reference No.18 of 2019.The Honourable Supreme Court
also granted bail to an accused on similar terms as discussed above.
7. The
contention of learned counsel for the NAB that the Honourable Supreme Court in
the case of Rai Mohammad Khan reported in 2017 SCMR 1152 has not approved this proposition has been rebutted
by learned counsel for the petitioners by placing reliance on two unreported
judgments of Honourable Supreme Court passed viz (1) C.P.No. 2300 of 2018 &
(2) C.P.No.1175 of 2020. In Civil Petition No.1175-K/2020 and the relevant portion of the order dated
26.11.2020 is reproduced as under:-
“We have
observed that bulk of accused nominated
in the reference are enlarged on bail either due to acceptance of plea bargain
or had deposited their incurred liability with the trial court. Otherwise we
have been informed that as per order of Accountability Court, Sukkur dated
27.07.2020 a letter bearing No.ABL/JCD/2(20) dated 27.07.2020 from Allied Bank
Limited Jacobabad Branch was received to
the trial court wherein it is submitted that DD bearing No.BBB1351295 dated
20.07.2020 amounting to Rs.34,72,100/- is genuine and the entry of the same has
been made in the register in the name of trial court. It is noticed that the pre-arrest bail of co-accused Mujeeb-ur-Rehman has been confirmed on deposit of pay-order in civil petition
No.277-K/2020 by this Court vide order dated 15.07.2020. The petitioner has
already deposited his individual liability of Rs.34,72,100/- before the learned
trial court and leave this case has already been granted on 07.08.2020 at
Karachi Branch Registry of this Court, hence, in the interest of safe
administration of criminal justice, the petitioner be released on bail subject
to his furnishing bail bond in the sum of Rs.5,00,000/= with two sureties each
in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trail court”.
8.
Similar view was taken by Honourable Supreme Court in
judgment in the case of Mumtaz Ali v The State through Chairman NAB in
C.P.No.1149-K of 2018. This judgement is reproduced below:-
“Mr.Muhammad Ashraf Kazi Senior
Advocate Supreme Court, submits that the petitioner is ready and willing to
deposit with the trial Court the entire amount of his liability so far
determined by the prosecution.
Syed
Amjad Ali Shah learned DPG NAB present in Court waives the notice and submits
that in view of the case of Shamraiz Khan v The State (2000 SCMR 157) he would
have no objection for the grant of a bail to the petitioner subject to his
depositing the entire amount of his liability in this case being Rs.61,79,238/-
(Rupees Sixty One Lac, Seventy Nine Thousand, Two Hundred and Thirty
Eight) with the Additional Registrar of this Court at
Brach Registry Karachi.
In
these circumstances, this petition is converted into an appeal and allowed, the
petitioner is admitted to bail subject to his depositing with the Additional
Registrar of this Court the above amount”.
9. These
judgments are subsequent in time and passed by three members bench of
Honourable Supreme Court whereas the reliance placed by learned counsel for NAB
on the case reported in 2017 SCMR 1152 was earlier in time and the judgment is
delivered by two member bench.
10. In view of above, the interim pre-arrest
bail already granted to petitioners Abdul
Aziz Bullo (Rs.34,61,273/-), Himat Ali Soomro, (Rs,21,07,156/), Adnan Ahmed
Qazi, (Rs.3,73,040/-), Nawab (Rs.2,79,259/-, KhamisoMazari (Rs.6,34,258/-),
Danish Noor (Rs.7,29,069/-), Abdul Shakoor (Rs.1,03,80,585/-, Muhammad Hassan (Rs.30,47,597/-)Nazir
Ahmed, (Rs,74,62,662/-) &Shabbir AhmedAbbasi (Rs.7,24,714/)- is hereby
confirmed subject to depositing entire amounts
through pay orders equivalent to their respective individual liabilities
as mentioned in the above Reference within a period of 15 days and P.R Bonds in the like amount to the
satisfaction of learned trial Court. Failure whereof, the interim pre-arrest
bail granted to the aforementioned petitioners shall stand recalled on expiry
of 15 days from today and the petitioners will be taken into custody and
remanded to jail till deposit of the above amounts. Similarly, petitioners Sarfaraz
Ali Ghanghroand Ghulam MustafaLashariare admitted to post-arrest bail subject
to depositing amounts of Rs.25,744/-&Rs.4,309,338/- as mentioned in the
above Reference, through pay orders and P.R Bond in the like amountto the satisfaction of learned Trial Court.
11. The observations made hereinabove are
tentative in nature and will not influence the learned trial Court while
deciding the reference on merits.
12. The aforementioned petitions are disposed of
in above terms.
JUDGE
JUDGE
Akber.
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH BENCH AT SUKKUR
C.P.No.D-
3222 of 2016.
A/wC.P.No.D-
4409 of 2016.
C.P.Nos.D- 1657, 1660, 1661, 1697, 1698, 1743,
1744
of 2019.
C.P.Nos.D
– 119, 291 and 448 of 2020.
|
Date |
Order with signature of Judge |
1.For hearing of CMA 8461/2016.
2.For
hearing of main case.
16.03.2021.
M/s.Qurban
Ali Malano, Amanullah G. Malik, Shahid Ali K. Memon
and Mumtaz Ali JehangirLashari Advocates for petitioners.
Mr.MuhammadZubair
Malik SP.NAB.
-
Heard
arguments of learned counsel for the parties. For the reasons to be recorded
later on, interim pre-arrest bail granted earlier to the Petitioners inC.P.No.D-
3222 & 4409 of 2016, C.P.Nos.D -
1657, 1660, 1661, 1697, 1698, 1743& 1744 of 2019&C.P.No.D – 119
of 2020,are hereby confirmed subject to the deposit of amount equivalent to their respective liability determined by
the NAB in Reference No.16 of 2019 through pay orders within 15 days, whereas
the Petitioners namely Sarfaraz Ali Ghanghro in C.P.No.D 291 of 2020 and Ghulam
Mustafa Lashari in C.P.No.D- 448 of 2020 who are behind the bar, are admitted
to bail may be released forthwith subject to depositing an amount of Rs.25,744/- (Rs.Twenty Five Thousand, Seven Hundred Fourty Four) and Rs.4,309,338/- (Rs.Fourty Three Lac,
Nine Thousand, Three Hundred Thirty Eight) through pay order(s) to the satisfaction of the trial Court.
JUDGE
JUDGE
Akber.