ORDER SHEET
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH AT HYDERABAD
CP No. D-970 of 2018
Petitioner: Muhammad Aqeel Munawar Abro through
Mr. Noorul Haq Qureshi, advocate.
Respondent: Chairman, National Accountability Bureau through Mr. Ghous Bux Kaheri, Special Prosecutor NAB.
---------------------------
CP No. D-983 of 2017
Petitioner: Abdul Rasheed Kaka through
Mr. Farhad Ali Abro, advocate.
Respondents: Chairman, National Accountability Bureau through Mr. Ghous Bux Kaheri, Special Prosecutor NAB.
Dates of Hearing: 1-01-2019
Fahim Ahmed Siddiqui, J. This single order will dispose of the aforementioned petitions, wherein the petitioners have pleaded for suspension of their sentences and release them on bail during the pendency of appeal against sentences awarded by the learned Presiding Officer, Accountability Court, Hyderabad. The learned trial Court held the appellants guilty and sentenced them to serve rigorous imprisonment for seven years and fine of Rs. 500,000/-, in default whereof they have to serve simple imprisonment for a period of six months more.
2. The prosecution case is that in the incidents of rioting and arson, after the demise of Mohtarma Benezeer Bhutto, the revenue record of different areas in the whole province was destroyed. A committee was formed for reconstruction of records of Taluka Hala and during such exercise, certain government land (Survey No. 387/1 & 2 measuring 15-08 acres) was fraudulently claimed by the principal accused under his ownership on the basis of fake documents prepared by him in league with the petitioners and other accused, who are government officials. After preparing of such bogus documents of the said land, the same land was acquired by the government for establishing Public School Bhit Shah.
3. It has been submitted by Mr. Noorul Haq Qureshi, the learned counsel for the petitioner Muhammad Aqeel Munawar Abro (CP No. 970/2018) that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the case and there is no reliable evidence against him on the basis of which he could have been convicted for the offence for which he has been convicted. It has further been contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that an appeal against the impugned judgment has already been filed but the same could not be decided as yet. He further submits that co-appellants Muhammad Yousuf and Haji Muhammad Illyas having similar case have already been admitted to bail by this Court during the pendency of their appeals. It has further been contended that the main accused has already entered into a plea bargain and after admitting entire responsibility, he returned the entire amount, he had received in acquiring proceeding. It is emphatically argued by the learned counsel for the appellant that in the instant case after returning of the entire amount, no loss to the public exchequer was caused in the instant case. It has been submitted that during trial certain original documents were not produced and only the photo copies were produced and exhibited during the trial. It has also been argued that the petitioner has served major portion of his sentence, and in such circumstances, he deserves bail during the pendency of appeal as in case of success in appeal the period of incarceration cannot be compensated in any manner. According to him, the petitioner has already filed an appeal and there is every hope of success in appeal and as such petitioner deserves suspension of sentence and bail.
4. Mr. Farhad Ali Abro, learned counsel for petitioner Abdul Rasheed Kaka (CP No. D-983 of 2018) adopted the arguments advanced by Mr. Qureshi. However, he submits that although the period of confinement of said convicted petitioner is lesser but otherwise his case is at par with the petitioner of CP No. 970/2018.
5. The learned Special prosecutor while opposing the bail application submits that the case against the co-appellant is dissimilar as they have been awarded sentences of two years, which is lesser than the petitioners. According to him, the petitioners are in league with the main accused and they have caused loss to the government exchequer. He admits that the main accused has entered into a plea bargain and he is released after acceptance of his plea and returning of the entire amount of rupees 11.4 million.
6. We have heard the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the petitioners as well as learned Special Prosecutor and have gone through the relevant record. Both the petitioners/appellants are continuously in jail since the pronouncement of judgement of conviction. As per Jail Roll, the petitioner Muhammad Aqeel Munawar Abro has almost served half of the sentence awarded to him while the petitioner Abdul Rasheed Kaka has also served a considerable period in jail, which no doubt lesser to the petitioner Muhammad Aqeel Munawar Abro, but otherwise his case is at par to him. Two appellants have already been released on bail, no doubt the punishment awarded to them was lesser i.e. two years but it is also a fact that the instant appeal was filed in the year 2017 and since then it could not be heard. It is also a fact that the main accused has been released after accepting his plea bargain and he has deposited the entire amount rupees 1.4 million, which was received by him as the price of land acquired by the government on the basis of allegedly fake documents. In the existing position of affairs, we are of the view that a case of suspension of sentence has been made out in favour of the petitioners; as such the sentence awarded to the petitioners is suspended subject to furnishing solvent surety of Rs. 10,00,000/- (ten hundred thousand only) by each of the petitioners and PR bond of equivalent amount to the satisfaction of Additional Registrar of this Court through our short order dated 01-01-2019 and these are the reasons for the same.
JUDGE
JUDGE