HIGH COURT OF SINDH AT KARACHI
Constitutional
Petition No.D-3394 of 2013
Constitutional
Petition No.D-1548 of 2013
Constitutional
Petition No.D-4418 of 2013
Constitutional
Petition No.D- 370 of 2014
Constitutional
Petition No.D- 371 of 2014
Constitutional Petition No.D- 557
of 2014
Present:
Mr. Justice Ghulam Sarwar Korai, J.
Mr. Naimatullah Phulpoto, J.
Appellant: Gul Muhammad Palejo through Mr. Abdul Mujeeb Pirzada, Advocate (in C.P. No.D-3394/2013)
Appellant: Ashfaq Ahmad through Mr. Sohail Muzaffar, Advocate (in C.P. No.D-1548/2013)
Appellant: Nadir through
Mr. Mukesh Kumar Khatri,
Advocate (in C.P. No.D-4418/2013)
Appellant: Mr. Muhammad Ramzan Khan through Mr. Mukesh
Kumar Khatri, Advocate (in C.P.
No.D-370/2014)
Appellant: Muhammad Asim Khan through Mr. Hameedullah
Dahri, Advocate (in C.P. No.D-371/2014)
Appellant: Syed Manzoor Ahmed Shah, through Mr. Arshad
Khan Jadoon, Advocate (in C.P.
No.D-557/2014)
Respondents: National
Accountability Bureau through Mr. Noor Muhammad Dayo,
Special Prosecutor, NAB
Date
of hearing 10.02.2014
O
R D E R
NAIMATULLAH PHULPOTO, J.--- By this single order we will dispose of aforesaid
constitutional petitions filed by Petitioners Gul Muhammad Palejo
and Syed Manzoor Ahmed Shah, Ashfaq
Ahmed, Muhammad Ramzan Khan and Muhammad Asim Khan, seeking bail in Reference No.60/2013,
filed before the Administrative Judge, Accountability Courts Sindh at Karachi.
2. Brief facts leading to the filing of petition are that a complaint
against Syed Manzoor Ahmed Shah, Sub Accountant,
District Accounts Office Umerkot and Syed Azam Ali Shah brother of Manzoor
Ahmed Shah PST Umerkot and others was received in NAB
from complainant Ali Murad son of Yar
Ali, on the basis of which inquiry was authorized. During inquiry it revealed
that fake payments in respect of claims pertaining to Health Department amount
to Rs.87,163,283/- were made to two fake companies
i.e. M/s. Super Sys-Tech Computers, Tando Adam and
M/s. Al-Qasim Agency Mirpurkhas.
Inquiry was later on converted into investigation and authorized by the
Director General, National Accountability Bureau Sindh vide letter No.1128/1/IW-1/CO-B/T-1/NAB
Sindh/2012/2084 dated July 17, 2013. The investigation officer conducted
investigation and in his report, he recommended submission of reference against
the accused persons.
3. The investigation report reveals that the Health Department,
Government of Sindh has suffered a huge loss of Rs.87,163,283/-
due to misuse of authority, corruption and corrupt practices and criminal breach of trust by the
accused officers and officials of District Accounts Office Umerkot
with active connivance of accused No.7 Muhammad Asim Khan, Proprietor Super Sys-Tech Computers
(brother-in-law of accused No.1 Syed Manzoor Ahmed Shah), accused No.6
Nadir son of Nizamuddin, Proprietor M/s. Al-Qasim Agency (Brother-in-law of accused No.7
Muhammad Asim Khan) and accused No.5
Syed Umer Ali Shah son of Syed Manzoor Ahmed Shah who
is private person and has been unauthorizedly working
with his father accused No.1 Syed Manzoor
Ahmed Shah. Investigating Officer has secured 25 forged cheques for fake
payments which were shown processed on SAP System after entering fake token
numbers from the IDs of officials and amount was charged to Health Department’s
head Account No.AO 1101 for pay of officers, AO 1151 pay of other staff and AO
1244 Adhoc relief of cost center UK-6084 during March
2011 to November 2011.
4. All the accused were given the VR option but none of them
considered the same except Syed Manzoor Ahmed Shah
accused No.1, whose VR application was rejected by
competent authority. He was arrested on 06.05.2013 and remanded to the judicial
custody on 07.05.2013. The bank accounts of all the accused were examined which
showed a clear interflow of the money from the account of accused No.6 and 7 the owners of the two fake companies in the
account of Syed Umer Ali Shah accused No.5.
5. The officials of District Accounts Office and Banks were
examined during investigation and their statements were recorded. It is apparently
established that 20 cheques amount to Rs.66,985,150/-
favouring M/s. Super Sys-Tech Computers were presented through Burj Bank Limited formerly Dawood
Islamic Bank Limited, Tando Adam Brach then 06 demand
Drafts issued in favour of Burj bank Limited after
deducting Bank charges @ Rs.0.04% and 06 cheques
amounting to Rs.20,178,133/- favouring M/s. Al-Qasim Agency were presented through Bank Islami Pakistan
Limited Mirpurkhas Branch then 02 Demand Drafts
issued in favour of the Bank. All the cheques were signed and issued by accused
No.2 Ashfaque Ahmed Shaikh Ex-Additional District Accounts Officer Umerkot.
6. The investigation further reveals that as per record of Burj Bank, Tando Adam Account No.0024-01586-0002143 in the name of Super Sys-Tech
Computer Center was operated by accused M. Asim Khan.
The account was opened on 15.04.2010 with initial deposit of Rs.1000/- and monthly business of Rs.30,000/- for the purpose of account to collect the fees
from students. The total credited amount in this account is Rs.106,356,553.39
including 06x demand drafts from NBP
of 20x treasury cheques were deposited in this
account amount to Rs.66,953,625/- after deduction of
bank charges. The debit transaction in this account was Rs.106,356,553.39 out of which the amount Rs.29,347,300.45 was transferred through cheques of Super
Sys-Tech Computers into other accounts in the same bank. The above named
accused persons have fraudulently withdrawn Rs.87.163
Million and caused loss to the Government Exchequer. Thus they have prima facie
committed the acts of corruption and corrupt practices as defined under section
9(a) of the National Accountability Ordinance, 1999 and punishable under
section 10 of the said Ordinance.
7. Petitioner Gul Muhammad Palejo filed
Constitution Petition No.D-3394 of 2013 for seeking post arrest bail, the same
was dismissed by this Court vide order dated 26.09.2013.
8. Petitioner Gul Muhammad Palejo filed C.P. No.600-K/2013 before the Honourable Supreme Court and the
order of this Court dated 26.09.2013 was set aside vide order dated 13.01.2014,
while observing as under:-
“We have heard both
the learned DPG (NAB) as well as Mr. Abdul Mujeeb Pirzada, Senior ASC. In the circumstances of the case we are of the opinion
that the cases of all the accused persons with regard to bail should be heard
by a learned bench of the High Court in order to avoid conflicting judgments.
Consequently the impugned judgment is set aside. Let all the bail applications
of the accused persons in the Reference No.60/2013 be
placed before a Divisional Bench of the High Court of Sindh which should decide
the same within 15 days. A copy of this order shall be placed before the Hon’ble Chief Justice of the Sindh High Court for doing the
needful.”
9. Bail after arrest of Petitioners Gul Muhammad
Palejo, Syed Manzoor Ahmed Shah,
pre-arrest bail applications of Petitioners Ashfaq Ahmed,
Muhammad Asif and Muhammad Ramzan
have been heard together. Bail application moved on behalf of the Petitioner
Nadir was dismissed as not pressed. C.P. No.D-2519 of 2013, filed by Syed Manzoor
Ahmad Shah, seeking his release on bail has already been dismissed by this
Court vide order dated 22.08.2013. He has also repeated the bail application.
All bail applications of accused persons in Reference No.60/2013
have been heard together as per directions.
10. Mr. Abdul Mujeeb Pirzada, Advocate, argued that Petitioner Gul Muhammad Palejo was Accountant in District Accounts Office Umer Kot. No active role has been assigned to him except his initials
on two cheques. Mr. Pirzada further argued that
petitioner Gul Muhammad was not beneficiary and he had
put his initials on two cheques due to the rush of work in good faith. In this
regard, Mr. Pirzada placed on record the statement of
the Petitioner Gul Muhammad in which he has stated during inquiry that he put
initials in good faith. It is argued that Petitioner is in jail, he is no more
required in the investigation. It is submitted that accused Gul Muhammad Palejo should have been made as a witness in this case, not
an accused. Lastly, he has argued that accused Gul Muhammad suffers from heart
ailment and he has undergone bypass surgery before arrest in the instant Reference.
In support of the contentions, he relied upon the cases of Anwar Saifullah Khan versus the State and others 2001 SCMR 1040, Muzzamil Niazi and others versus the State PLD
2003 Karachi 526, Ikram-ul-Haq versus Raja Naveed Sabir and others 2012 SCMR 1273.
11. Learned Advocate for Petitioner Syed Manzoor Hussain Shah argued that that case against
Petitioner is based upon documentary evidence, Petitioner is no more required
for investigation, Reference has already been filed.
There is no question of tampering with the evidence. Lastly it is argued that
allegation against the Petitioner are baseless, imaginary and based upon no
solid proof
12. Mr. Suhail Muzaffar, Advocate for Petitioner Ashfaq
Ahmed argued that petitioner is innocent, he has been falsely implicated in
this case, there is no direct or indirect evidence against the petitioner to
connect him in this case and he has been involved in this case at the instance
of one Syed Ali Mardan Shah Ex- Minister for
Government of Sindh.
13. Learned Advocate for Appellant Muhammad Asim Khan argued that Reference has been filed against the
Petitioner for humiliation and unjustified harassment and there is no
allegation against the Petitioner for issuing the cheques and it is argued that
Petitioner was working as Computer Operator, he had
nothing to do with this case. Lastly, it is submitted that NAB intended to
arrest him only to humiliate and disgrace.
14. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner Muhammad
Ramzan Khan argued that Petitioner was working on
daily wages and Computer Operator. He had nothing to do with the alleged
offence. It is argued that Reference has been filed against the Petitioner for
unjustified harassment. In case pre-arrest
bail of Petitioner is not confirmed, humiliation would be caused to him and he
will be disgraced in the society. Lastly, it is submitted that case against
Petitioner requires further enquiry.
15. Mr. Noor Muhammad, Special Prosecutor NAB,
as well as D.A.G. opposed the bail applications and
argued that there is documentary evidence against the Petitioners to disentitle
them from the concession of the bail. Mr. Dayo,
Special Prosecutor NAB argued that Petitioner Gul Muhammad Palejo
had put initials on two cheques of amount of Rs.86,163,283/-. Mr. Dayo placed
on record copy of the letter dated 31.01.2014, issued by A/DD-Coord (IW-1), National
Accountability Bureau, showing the proportionate liability of the accused
persons involved in Reference No.60/2013 in hand. He
also referred to the above Reference in order to show the separate allegations
against the Petitioners. Lastly, he has argued that there was no mala fide or
enmity to the NAB against the accused persons to involve them falsely in the
reference. He has strongly opposed the bail applications. In support of his
contention, he has relied upon the following case law:
1. Faisal Hussain Butt versus the State and
another (2009 SCMR 133)
2. The State versus Haji Kabeer
Khan (PLD 2005 SC 364)
3. Abdullah Durani
and Others versus the State (2004 SCMR 1200)
4. Noor Ali Shah versus Chairman, National
Accountability Bureau (Pakistan), Karachi (2008 YLR
2217)
5. Jaffer Hussain
versus Khushi Muhammad and 4 others (2008 YLR 2220)
6. Farida Rohail
versus the State through Regional Director, National Accountability Bureau,
Karachi (2007 MLD 347)
7. Syed Mohsin Abbas Abidi
versus National Accountability Bureau through Shafaat
Nabi Khan Sherwani, Deputy
Prosecutor General Accountability (2007 PCrLJ 1094)
8. Shahid Hassan
Awan versus the State through Chairman, National Accountability Bureau,
Islamabad and another (2008 YLR 1081)
9. Zubair Ali Khan
versus the State and others (2008 MLD 1400)
16. In order to examine the role of each
accused, Reference No.60/2013 under section 18(g)
read with section 24(b) of the National Accountability Ordinance 1999 filed
before Administrative Judge, Accountability Court Sindh at Karachi is
reproduced as under:-
“1. That a complaint against Syed Manzoor Ahmed Shah, Sub-Accountant, District Accounts
Office Umerkot and Syed Azam
Ali Shah Brother of Manzoor Ahmed Shah PST Umerkot and others was received in NAB from Complainant Ali
Murad son of Yar Ali on the basis of which
inquiry was authorized. During inquiry it revealed that fake payments in
respect of claims pertaining to Health Department amounting to Rs.87,163,283/- were made to two
fake companies i.e. M/s. Super Sys-Tech Computers, Tando
Adam and M/s. Al-Qasim Agency Mirpurkhas.
Inquiry was later on converted into investigation and authorized by the
Director General, National Accountability Bureau Sindh vide letter No.1128/1/IW-1/CO-B/T-1/NAB
Sindh/2010/2084 dated July 17, 2013. The investigation officer conducted
investigation and submitted his report and recommended submission of reference
against the accused persons.
2. That
the investigation report reveals that the Health Department, Government of
Sindh has suffered a huge loss of Rs.87,163,283/- due
to misuse of authority, corruption and corrupt
practices, and criminal breach of trust by the accused officers and
officials of District Accounts Office Umerkot with
active connivance of accused No.7 Muhammad Asim Khan, Proprietor Super Sys-Tech Computers
(brother-in-law of accused No.1 Syed Manzoor Ali Shah), accused No.6
Nadir son of Nizamuddin, Proprietor M/s. Al-Qasim Agency (Brother-in-law of accused No.7
Muhammad Asim Khan) and accused No.5
Syed Umer Ali Shah son of Syed Manzoor Ali Shah who
is private person and has been unauthorizedly working
with his father accused No.1 Syed Manzoor
Ahmed Shah. Investigating Officer has secured 25 forged cheques for fake
payments which were shown processed on SAP System after entering fake token
numbers from the IDs of officials and amount was charged to Health Department’s
head Account No.AO 1101 for pay of officers, AO-1151 pay of other staff and AO-1244
Adhoc relief of cost center UK-6084 during March 2011
to November 2011.
3. That
all the accused were given the VR option but none of them considered the same
except Syed Manzoor Ahmed Shah accused No.1, whose VR application was rejected by competent
authority. He was arrested on 06.05.2013 and remanded to the judicial custody
on 07.05.2013. The bank accounts of all the accused were examined which showed
a clear interflow of the money from the accounts of accused No.6
and 7 the owners of the two fake companies in the account of Syed Umer Ali Shah
accused No.5.
4. That
the officials of District Accounts Office and Banks were examined during
investigation and their statements were recorded. It is established that 20
cheques amounting to Rs.66,985,150/-
favouring M/s. Super Sys-Tech Computers were presented through Burj Bank Limited formerly Dawood
Islamic Bank Limited, Tando Adam Branch then 06
demand Drafts issued in favour of Burj bank Limited
after deducting Bank charges @ Rs.0.04% and 05
cheques amounting to Rs.20,178,133/- favouring M/s.
Al-Qasim Agency were presented through Bank Islami
Pakistan Limited Mirpurkhas Branch then 02 Demand
Drafts issued in favour of the Bank. All the cheques were signed and issued by
accused No.2 Ashfaque Ahmed
Shaikh, Ex-Additional District Accounts Officer Umerkot. The detail is as under:-
A. Payment to Super
Sys-Tech Computers Owned by Accused Asim Khan:
S.
No. |
Date |
Cheque/ Invoice # |
Amount |
Collection
Details |
1.
|
02.03.2011 |
385197 |
495,263 |
DD
# 344301 dated 03.05.2011 for 1,989,474/- issued in favour of Dawood Islamic Bank Ltd Tando
Adam Branch |
2.
|
26.04.2011 |
385304 |
498,777 |
|
3.
|
26.04.2011 |
385305 |
499,533 |
|
4.
|
26.04.2011 |
385306 |
496,899 |
|
1,990,472 |
||||
5.
|
10.05.2011 |
385656 |
499,898 |
DD
# 344350 dated 16.05.2011 for 1,992,686/- issued in favour of Dawood Islamic Bank Ltd Tando
Adam Branch |
6.
|
10.05.2011 |
385657 |
497,548 |
|
7.
|
10.05.2011 |
385658 |
498,654 |
|
8.
|
10.05.2011 |
385659 |
497,586 |
|
1,993,686 |
||||
9.
|
06.06.2011 |
476282 |
5,500,654 |
DD
# 345474 dated 15.06.2011 for 21,990,706/- issued in favour of Dawood Islamic Bank Ltd Tando
Adam Branch |
10.
|
06.06.2011 |
476283 |
5,500,176 |
|
11.
|
06.06.2011 |
476284 |
5,500,067 |
|
12.
|
06.06.2011 |
476285 |
5,500,095 |
|
22,000,992 |
||||
13.
|
14.06.2011 |
476664 |
3,000,000 |
DD
# 344502 dated 21.06.2011 for 8,995,749/- issued in favour of Dawood Islamic Bank Ltd Tando
Adam Branch |
14.
|
14.06.2011 |
476665 |
3,000,000 |
|
15.
|
14.06.2011 |
476666 |
3,000,000 |
|
9,000,000 |
||||
16.
|
20.06.2011 |
477190 |
8,000,000 |
DD
# 344525 dated 24.06.2011 for 11,994,357/- issued in favour of Dawood Islamic Bank Ltd Tando
Adam Branch |
17.
|
20.06.2011 |
477191 |
4,000,000 |
|
12,000,000 |
||||
18.
|
03.10.2011 |
477672 |
8,000,000 |
DD
# 344786 dated 07.10.2011 for 19,990,650/- issued in favour of Dawood Islamic Bank Ltd Tando
Adam Branch |
19.
|
27.09.2011 |
330000 |
8,000,000 |
|
20.
|
05.10.2011 |
477688 |
4,000,000 |
|
|
|
|
20,000,000 |
|
Grand
Total Rs.66,985,150 |
|
B.
Payments to M/s. Al_Qasim Agency
Owned by Accused Nadir
1. |
03.11.2011 |
478078 |
5,500,659 |
DD
# 344851 dated 10.11.2011 for 6,497,722/- issued in favour of Manager Bank
Islami Pak. Limited Mirpurkhas Branch. |
2. |
03.11.2011 |
478079 |
1,000,149 |
|
6,500,808 |
||||
3. |
08.10.2011 |
477905 |
5,500,985 |
DD
# 344797 dated 12.10.2011 for 13,670,909/- issued in favour of Manager Bank
Islami Pak. Limited Mirpurkhas Branch. |
4. |
08.10.2011 |
477713 |
5,500,589 |
|
5. |
08.10.2011 |
477712 |
2,675,751 |
|
13,677,325 |
||||
Grand
Total Rs.20,178,133 |
|
|||
A. The
Grand Total of Super Sys Tech = Rs.66,985,150/- B. The Grand total of
Al-Qasim Agency = Rs.20,178,133/- Grand
TotalA+B = Rs.87,163,283/- |
5. That the above named accused persons
are found openly involved in the offence and they were provided with ample
opportunity to prove their innocence but they failed to give any such evidence
in their favour. It is established that they have committed criminal breach of
trust, misuse of authority in case of issuing 25 fake cheques from District
Accounts Office Umerkot in the name of fake companies
opened by relatives of main accused Manzoor Ahmed
Shah, Auditor, District Accounts Office Umerkot.
6. That Investigation has transpired that
in order to give cover to these paid off 25 cheques, 20 in favour of Super
Sys-Tech Computer Center for Rs.66,985,150/- and 5 in
favour of Al-Qasim Agency Mirpurkhas
for Rs.20,178,133/-, the accused Manzoor
Shah, M. Ramzan and Umer Ali Shah prepared forged
record at District Accounts Officer Umerkot. All
these fake vouchers of fake Super Sys-Tech Computer Company are signed by
proprietor accused M Asim Khan. These forged papers were recovered from the
office almirah of accused Mansoor
Ahmed Shah.
7. That investigation further reveals that
as per record Bank Islami Mirpurkhas A/c. No.1021-1470523-0001 in the name of Al-Qasim Agency
Hyderabad Road Mirpurkhas was opened by accused Nadir
as Proprietor of the Company. In this account Rs.20,168,631/- were credited through clearance of 05
cheques where amount was received from National Bank of Pakistan Umerkot Branch through two Demand Drafts.
8. The investigation further reveals that
as per record of Burj Bank, Tando
Adam Account No.0024-01586-0002143 in the name of
Super Sys-Tech Computer Center was operated by accused M. Asim
Khan. The account was opened on 15.04.2010 with initial deposit of Rs.1000/- and monthly business of Rs.30,000/- for the purpose of account to collect the fees
from students. The total credited amount in this account is Rs.106,356,553.39
including 06x demand drafts from NBP
of 20x treasury cheques were deposited in this
account amounting to Rs.66,953,625/- after deduction
of bank charges. The debit transaction in this account was Rs.106,356,553.39 out of which the amount Rs.29,347,300.45 was transferred through cheques of Super
Sys-Tech Computers into other accounts in the same bank. The modus operandi and
role of the accused are more fully described in the Investigation Report.
9. That in view of above facts and
evidence collected, it has been established that the above named accused
persons have fraudulently withdrawn Rs.87.163 Million
and caused loss to the Government Exchequer. Thus they have committed the acts
of corruption and corrupt practices as defined under section 9(a) of the
National Accountability Ordinance, 1999 and punishable under section 10 of the
said Ordinance.”
17. After hearing the learned counsel for the
parties, we have tentatively examined the entire material collected by the NAB
during investigation as well as Reference filed before the concerned
Accountability Court. A Court considering a bail application has to
tentatively look into the facts and circumstances of the case and once it comes
to the conclusion that no reasonable ground exists for believing that the
accused has committed a non-bailable offence, it has
the discretion to release the accused on bail. In order to ascertain whether
reasonable grounds exist or not, the Court should not probe into the merit of
the case, but restrict itself to the material placed before it by the
prosecution to see whether some tangible evidence is available against the accused
which if left un-rebutted, may lead to inference of guilt.
18. We have tentatively examined the
material/allegations of the prosecution leveled against each accused. As far as
Petitioner Ghulam Muhammad Palejo is concerned, he
was Accountant, District Accounts Office Umerkot at
the relevant time. During investigation, it was found that Petitioner Gul
Muhammad Palejo put his initials on two cheques
amounting to Rs.8,000,000/-
and 4,000,000/-. Mr. Pirzado, appearing on behalf of
Petitioner Gul Muhammad placed on record statement of Petitioner Gul Muhammad
recorded during the investigation, in which he has admitted that he put
signatures on two forged cheques but claimed that he did so in rush of work and
in good faith. Prima facie, there is sufficient documentary evidence and
statement of the Petitioner Gul Muhammad Palejo in
which he has admitted his signatures. Prima facie, there are reasonable grounds
to believe that the applicant/accused Gul Muhammad Palejo
has committed the alleged offence. Petitioner Gul Muhammad has recovered after
surgery. However, Jail Superintendent shall provide proper treatment to accused
Gul Muhammad, if needed. In the Reference in Para No.5
to 8 specific material/allegations against the above named accused persons have
been detailed and it is alleged that above named Petitioners have committed
criminal breach of trust, misuse of authority by issuing 25 fake cheques from
District Accounts Office Umerkot in the name of fake
Companies opened by relatives of main accused Manzoor
Ahmed Shah, Auditor, District Accounts Office Umerko.t During investigation it
was also transpired that in order to give cover to these paid off 25 cheques,
20 in the favour of Super Sys-Tech Computer Company for Rs.66,985,150.05
in the favour of Al-Qasim Agency Mirpurkhas
for Rs.20,178,133/-, accused Manzoor
Ahmed Shah, Muhammad Ramzan and Umer Ali Shah
prepared forged record at District Accounts Office Umerkot.
All these fake vouchers for fake Super Sys-Tech Computer Company were signed by
accused Muhammad Asim Khan. Thereafter, forged
cheques were recovered from the Almirah of accused Manzoor Ahmed Shah from his office. Further it revealed in
the investigation that as per record of Bank Islami Mirpurkhas
an Account No.1021-1470523-0001 in the name of AL-Qasim Agency Hyderabad Road Mirpurkhas
was opened by accused Nadir as Proprietor of the Company. In the said Account Rs.20,168,631/-
were credited through clearance of 5 cheques where amount was received from
National Bank of Pakistan Umerkot Branch through two
demand drafts. In the investigation it also came on surface that as per record
of Burj Bank, Tando Adam
Account No.0024-01586-0002143 in the name of Super
Sys-Tech Computer Center was operated by accused Muhammad Asim
Khan. The Account was opened on 15.04.2010 with the initial deposit of Rs.1000/- and monthly business of Rs.30,000/- for the purpose of account to collect the fee
from the students. The total credited amount in this account has been shown Rs.106,356,553.39/including 06 demand drafts from National
Bank of Pakistan of 20 Treasury Cheques were deposited in this Account
amounting to Rs.66,953,625.
The debit transaction in this account was Rs.106,356,553.39, out of which an amount of Rs.29,347,300.45 was transferred through cheques of Super
Sys-Tech Accounts in the other accounts in the same Bank. Apparently, there is
sufficient documentary evidence on the record to show that above named accused
persons have fraudulently withdrawn Rs.87.163 Million
and caused loss to the Government Exchequer.
19 Prima facie, the documentary evidence collected
by NAB authorities is sufficient to connect the accused persons, as such, reasonable
grounds exist that Petitioners have committed offences as alleged by the
prosecution. Petitioners/accused have failed to point
out any mala fide/enmity of NAB with them, to involve falsely in this case. This
Court exercises power for grant of bail before arrest in rare and in
exceptional circumstances. Deeper appreciation of evidence is not permissible
at bail stage. It is high time that offences of causing loss to Government
Exchequer should not be tolerated. In our considered view, above cited
authorities referred by learned counsel for the Petitioners are not applicable
to the circumstances of the case. While respectfully relying upon cases of
Faisal Hussain Butt versus the State and another (2009 SCMR
133) and the State versus Haji Kabeer Khan (PLD 2005 SC 364) above bail applications moved on behalf of
the applicants/accused are found without merit, the same are hereby dismissed. Interim
pre-arrest already granted to the petitioners/accused, namely, Ashfaq Ahmed, Muhammad Ramzan
Khan and Muhammad Asim Khan is hereby recalled. However,
trial Court is directed to proceed with the case/Reference on day to day basis
and submit the progress report through M.I.T.-II of
this Court. Consequently, aforesaid Constitutional Petitions filed for bail are
dismissed.
20. Needless to mention here that above
observations made herein above are tentative in nature and the trial Court
shall not be influenced by such observations while deciding the case on merits.
JUDGE
JUDGE
Gulsher/PA