ORDER SHEET
__________________________________________________
ORDER WITH SIGNATURE OF JUDGE
__________________________________________________
1) For orders on office objection No. 4.
2) For katcha peshi.
Statement filed.
M/S Rasheed A. Razvi and Amir Raza Naqvi Advocates for petitioners.
Mr. Muhammad Ali Waris ADPG NAB.
__________
The petitioners seek Pre-Arrest bail during the investigation of the proceedings pending against them before the NAB Authorities. They were admitted on interim Pre-Arrest bail vide order dated 25.5.2007. The petitioner Nazeer Ahmed Soomro in C.P. No. D-1110/2007 is a holder of public office serving as Director Technical, Public Health Engineering Department, Government of Sindh, Hyderabad. He started his career in Irrigation Department in the year 1974 and upon selection by the Sindh Public Service Commission, joined the Public Health Engineering Department. In the year 2003 the NAB summoned the petitioners to their office and were informed about investigation into the following immovable properties:-
i) Flat No. B-203, Second floor Afnan Arcade Karachi.
ii) Flat No. C-109 Sohni Apartments, Karachi.
iii) Two plots one being 72-A and other bearing No. 13, in Sector 4-B Gulshan-e-Shahbaz Jamshoro, Hyderabad.
iv) Open plot No. 49-C Phase VII DHA, Karachi admeasuring 100 yards.
However probe into such assets commenced in the year 2003 and pets were asked to furnish declaration of assets Wealth and Income Tax Return as well as their posting profiles.
During the course of investigation Waheed Murad Soomro Petitioner in C.P. No. D-1111/2007, was also involved by the Investigating Officer who being brother of Nazeer Ahmed Soomro who is a businessman and agriculturist by profession having acquired monetary gains by his father who was professional contractor in public / private sector since 1950.
The petitioner Waheed Murad being contractor and shareholder in his ancestral agricultural land had also obtained lands on Moqata basis for the purpose of cultivation and had also acquired lease hold rights in agricultural land of taluka Sehwan obtained by his father from the year 1981 to 1985 and 1986 to 1995. After the death of the petitioner’s father he continued the lease from the year 1989 to 1995 independently. The said petitioner was also engaged in fishmeal business in 1990 after conversion of 30 years poultry lease plot for industrial purpose on payment to Government. This business was successfully run with considerable profit. It is, averred that the petitioner had also acquired two cars from M/S Orix Leasing Company in the year 2002 and M/S Habib Bank Limited respectively in the year 2005. He had been connected in the investigation launched by the NAB authorities in the commission of corruption and corrupt practices.
We have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the record of the case.
Mr. Rasheed Ahmed Razvi, learned counsel for petitioners has contended that petitioner Nazeer Ahmed Soomro was serving in the Public Health Engineering Department, and had allegedly been involved in the commission of the alleged offences along with his brother Waheed Murad Soomro and could not be termed a dependent under Section 9(4) of National Accountability Ordinance 1999. It is further contended by the learned counsel that as a consequence of inquiries pending adjudication from the year 2003 the authorised officer could not proceed to lodge report therefore, there is no material available in connection with the collusion, connivance or conspiracy of both the petitioners, available with the petitioner, to establish the charge of criminality or criminal act on the part of the petitioners.
Mr. Muhammad Ali Waris appearing on behalf of the NAB has invited our attention to para wise comments whereby para 7 of the petition was admitted to the extent that petitioner Nazeer Ahmed Soomro has provided his plea to justify the assets obtained by him or his family members but, for verification of the concerned Government functionaries, no supportive evidence was produced. In their reply Mr. Rasheed Ahmed Razvi, learned counsel for petitioner has contended that there are serious allegations levelled of holding ice factory and sugar mill which could not be proved from any corner till this date. So far as the petitioners are concerned they were summoned in the office of NAB on 16 occasions but the explanation furnished and the documents produced were not taken into consideration which were acquired from the petitioner’s father, therefore, a thorough inquiry of his known source of income is required to be conducted. The petitioners have been attending the respondent’s office, yet exercise of comparing the assets with the known sources of income was not completed during investigation. In support of the above contention reliance is placed in the case of FARRUKH JAVED GHUMMAN VS. THE STATE (PLD 2004 LAHORE 155) and MUHAMMAD NASIM TURYALI AND OTHERS VS. GHULAM SARWAR KHAN AND OTHERS (PLD 2005 SC 570).
Upon hearing the learned counsel for the parties and upon examination of the record, prima facie the NAB authorities are involved in the investigation of the case, but so far no reference has been filed. The explanation furnished by the respondent tentatively justifies the relief claimed. It is not the spirit of law to withhold bail by way of punishment, therefore, without commenting on the merits and demerits of the allegation in the reference, since the petitioners have voluntarily appeared before this Court, we think a case for exercise of constitutional jurisdiction and discretion in the matter of bail is made out. Resultantly the petitions were allowed vide short order dated 14.3.2008 which reads as under:-
“For reasons to be recorded later, the petitions are hereby accepted. Interim Pre-Arrest bail granted by order dated 25.5.2007 hereby stands confirmed on the same terms and condition. In case the prosecution files any reference they shall be at liberty to apply for cancellation of the bail, if so advised, which shall be considered on its own merits. The petitions allowed.”
These are the reasons of our short order dated 14.3.2008.
J U D G E