ORDER SHEET

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH AT KARACHI

C.P. No.D-1334 Of 2008

                                                                                                                                                Date                             order with signature of Judge                                     

            1.         For Katcha Peshi.

            2.         For hearing of Misc. No.5181/09.

27.10.2009.

Mr. Anwar Tariq advocate alongwith the petitioner.

          Mr. Aslam Butt, DPG NAB.

>>>>>>>> <<<<<<<<<

          The petitioner has been implicated in Reference No.69/2007 which is pending in the Accountability Court No.II, Karachi. The allegation against the petitioner is that while employed as Head Master of a school in District Shikarpur he has allegedly misappropriated an amount of Rs.6,95,151/-.

It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that in all there are 67 accused persons in this reference and almost all of them have been granted bail either by this Court or by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. To substantiate such plea, learned counsel has filed a copy of the judgment dated 14.10.2008 passed in C.P. No.D-2091/2007 by a Division Bench of this Court and also relies upon a judgment in the case of Hosh Muhammad Vs. The Chairman NAB, Islamabad (2007 P.Cr.L.J. 1260). Learned counsel contends that the case of the petitioner is similar to that of the other accused in the reference who have been granted bail and states that on rule of consistency the interim pre arrest bail of the petitioner may be confirmed.

          Learned DPG NAB does not dispute the factual statement made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and states that almost all the accused persons in the said reference have been granted bail and the case of the petitioner is similar to the other accused. He, therefore, has no objection for the confirmation of the interim bail granted to the petitioner.

          We have considered the matter and find that there are about 67 accused persons in the reference and apparently as per the statement of the learned counsel appearing for the parties almost all the accused persons have been granted bail and substantially the allegation against the accused persons, who have been granted bail, is similar as that of the present petitioner. Following the rule of consistency we find that the petitioner is also entitled to the grant of bail. The petitioner was granted interim pre arrest bail vide order dated 01.07.2008. The said interim pre arrest bail is confirmed on the same terms and conditions mentioned in the order dated 01.07.2008.

          The petition alongwith listed application is disposed of in the above terms.

J U D G E

                        J U D G E

Aamir/PS