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