IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH, BENCH AT SUKKUR

Present;

Mr. Justice Amjad Ali Sahito

Cr. Bail Appln. No. S – 493 of 2021

Applicants : Syed Shan Hyder Shah S/o Syed Fida Hussain Shah

Through Mr.Aamir Mustafa Kamario Advocate

Respondent : The State

Through Mr. Munir Ahmed Siyal, Assistant Director, FIA along with Ms. Sania Qureshi, Investigating Officer FIA Crime and AHTC Sukkur

Mr. Muhammad Hamzo Buriro, DAG

Dated of hearing: 13.09.2021

Date of order : 13.09.2021

O R D E R

AMJAD ALI SAHITO, J – Through this bail application, the applicant/accused seeks post-arrest bail in Crime No.19 of 2021 registered at Police Station ‘FIA’ Crime Circle Sukkur for offences punishable under Section 419, 420, 468, 471, 34 and 109 PPC. The bail plea of the applicant/accused has been declined by learned Special Judge Anti-Corruption (Central), Hyderabad vide order dated 28.07.2021.

2. The details and particulars of the FIR are already available in the bail application and FIR, therefore same could be gathered from the copy of FIR attached with such application.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant/accused submits that an advertisement was published calling applications from the eligible candidates for the post of ASI in FIA department, as such the applicant/accused applied for the same and subsequently he received admit card for appearance in the examination; that the applicant/accused after having qualified the required tests / interviews was declared successful and was issued appointment order for the said post; that the applicant/accused is jail and he is no more required for the purpose of investigation. He lastly prayed that the applicant/accused has committed no offence, as alleged by the complainant/FIA, therefore, he is entitled for the concession of bail on the point of further enquiry.

4. On the other hand, learned Assistant Director FIA along with Investigating Officer of the case Inspector Ms.Sania Qureshi vehemently opposed for grant of bail to the applicant/accused by contending that the applicant/accused was employee of OTS department and he by managing his attendance in the examination, appeared in the examination and subsequently he was declared as successful candidate; that the signature of the Invigilator/Examiner and the applicant/accused is same, as such he is not entitled for the concession of bail.

5. I have heard the learned counsel for the applicant/accused, Assistant Director FIA and DAG for the State and perused the material available on record. It is the case of the prosecution that accused Syed Shan Hyder Shah has obtained the job as ASI (BPS-09) in FIA but later-on a probe was initiated and all over Pakistan and during the enquiry, it was established that accused Syed Shan Hyder Shah has obtained the job by using unfair means, deception fraud in OTS project title 250. On the other hand, learned counsel for the applicant/accused drawn the attention of the Court to the advertisement published in various daily newspapers and the applications were invited from the candidates for the post of ASI, as such the applicant/accused submitted his application, such admit slip was issued to him followed by the challan, thereafter roll number and slip was also given to him. After conducting the tests he was declared successful candidate and in the list he was placed at Serial # 02 thereafter interview call was issued and he also appeared in the interview and declared successful. The record further reveals that the applicant/accused was given offer letter, his documents were verified and then he was appointed as ASI (BPS‑09). In support of his claim, the applicant/accused has placed on record the documents, which are available from pages-33 to 81. The Assistant Director FIA forcefully argued that in OTS attendance sheet the signature of the Invigilator/Examiner and the applicant/accused is same. I have verified both the signatures, which are different, as such at this stage it cannot be said that the signature of the Invigilator/Examiner and the signature of the applicant/accused is same. Further the Investigating Officer of the case filed documents and the prosecution has alleged that the applicant/accused has managed his appointment, as such she relied upon the statement of one Shafique Ahmed Soomro, when it was enquired that whether the said Shafique Ahmed Soomro is in attendance, she replied that he is absconder, no statement is available nor any hand-writing expert report is available, which may suggest that the signature of the Invigilator/Examiner and the signature of the candidate is same. The challan of the case has been filed and the applicant/accused is in jail and he is no more required for the purpose of investigation. In an unreported case of Jahzeb Khan vs. The State through A.G KPK and others in Criminal Petition No.594/2020, the Honourable Court has held as under;-

“4. ……Petitioner’s continuous detention is not likely to improve upon investigative process, already concluded, thus, he cannot be held behind the bars as a strategy for punishment. A case for petitioner’s release on bail stands made out.”

6. In the circumstances, the learned counsel for the applicant/accused has made-out a case for grant of bail on the point of further inquiry under Sub-section (2) of Section 497 Cr.P.C. Consequently, the instant bail application is allowed and the applicant/accused is enlarged on bail subject to furnish solvent surety in the sum of Rs.100,000/- (One Lac) and PR bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of trial Court.

6. The observations made hereinabove are tentative in nature and will not prejudice the case of either party at the trial.

Judge

ARBROHI