IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH BENCH AT SUKKUR

Criminal Bail Application No. D- 07 of 2022

Criminal Bail Application No. D- 263 of 2021

Criminal Bail Application No. D- 270 of 2021

Present;

Mr. Justice Arshad Hussain Khan,

Mr. Justice Amjad Ali Sahito,,JJ.

Applicants : 1. Rafique Ahmed son of Abdul Rehman

Rajper bycaste,

2. Muhammad Iqbal S/O Muhammad Ahsan,

3. Anees-ur-Rehman son of Allah Muko

Bycaste Mahar,

Through M/s Qurban Ali Malano, Abdul Majeed Khoso, Nisar Ahmed Bhanbhro and Humayoon Sheikh, Advocates

Respondent : The Chairman National Accountability

Bureau, through M/s Mujeeb-ur-Rehman Soomro Special Prosecutor for NAB, Sukkur and Mumtaz Ali Gapang D.A.G.

Date of hearing : 06.04.2022

Date of Order : .04.2022

O R D E R

AMJAD ALI SAHITO, J.- Through this common order, we intend to dispose of aforesaid post arrest bail applications, filed on behalf of applicants/accused named above, who are involved in NAB Reference No. 26/2020 (re- The State vs. Shahdad Dino and others and others), pending trial before the Accountability Court, Sukkur.

2. At the very outset, learned counsel for the applicants/accused submits that the applicants/accused are innocent they have got no connection with the alleged offences. He contended that neither applicants/accused have misused his authority nor exercised improper jurisdiction and even not gained for themselves or their family members. He further contended that the applicants have been detained in custody mala fidely with an ulterior motive for reasons not connected with any offences alleged to have been committed by them. The case of the applicants require further enquiry, the case depends upon documentary evidence which can be proved at the trial stage, hence they are entitled to grant of bail. In support of his contention, he has relied upon the cases of Sikandar A. Karim vs. The State (1995 SCMR 387), Muhammad Boota vs. The State (2013 P.Cr.L.J 318) Sindh, Dr. Mujahid Kamran vs. Chairman National Accountability Bureau (NAB) and others (2019 P.Cr.L.J 34) Lahore, Mustafa Jamal Kazi and others vs. National Accountability Bureau and others (2019 YLR 650), Sheikh Imranul Haque vs. Federation of Pakistan through Secretary Ministry of Law, Islamabad and others ( PLD 2020 Islamabad 177), Muhammad Subtain Khan vs. National Accountability Bureau through Chairman NAB and 3 others (PLD 2020 Lahore 191), Mian Muhammad Shahbaz Sharif vs. National Accountability Bureau (2020 YLR 1370), Umar Mukhtar vs. The State through Director General Regional Accountability Bureau and others (2020 MLD 696), Masood Alam iazi and others vs. The State through Chairman NAB (2021 P.Cr.L.J 99) Sindh,

3. On the other hand, learned Special Prosecutors for NAB vehemently opposed for grant of bail to the applicants/accused.

4. We have heard the learned counsel for the applicants/accused, learned Special Prosecutor for NAB and also gone through the material available on record.

5. The prosecution claims that a source report was received in which it was alleged that officers/officials of Food Department District Sukkur in connivance with Flour Mill owners have misappropriated/ embezzled Government wheat lying at Flour Mills declared as PRC and Government Godowns, the NAB/I.O of the case made a raid at different Food Centres district Larkana under the supervision of Civil Judge & Judicial Magistrate, they found the shortage of stock in various PRCs and WPC, as such, the accused in collusion with each other caused a heavy loss to the Government exchequer.

6. It is alleged by the NAB in interim Reference No. 26 of 2020 that in view of the allegations pertaining to a huge shortage in wheat stock, physical verification of Government wheat at different Flour Mills/PRCs and godowns were carried out in presence of officers/officials of Food department and Judicial Magistrates, District Sukkur. It was further mentioned that 20x PRCs/flour mills/godowns were visited and in 7x flour mills and 1x godwn, wheat shortage was unearthed. Investigation Report further revealed that after physical verification, it was established that accused No.1 to 9 being officers/officials of PRCs/Flour Mills/godowns of Food Department Sukkur in active connivance of mill owners/lessess (entered into plea bargain) have misappropriate wheat stock of eight godown/Flour Mills to the tune of Rs.62,80,58,795/-. The applicants/accused along with co-accused shown in the Reference being officers/officials of Food Department District Sukkur were involved in misuse of authority in connivance and collaboration with 7x flour mills/PRC’s lessess who availaed the option of Plea Barain in instalments. The applicants/accused willfully misusused their respective authorities caused misappropriation which resulted in loss to the exchequer in connivance and collaboration with lessees who entered in to Plea Bargain.

7. At the bail stage only a tentative assessment is to be made. The prosecution witnesses have supported the version of the complainant. A perusal of record reflects that the witnesses are attending the trial Court and out of 12 PWs 04 PWs were examined by the learned trial court but the applicants/accused are avoiding to proceed the case. Learned special prosecutor NAB submits that applicant Rafique Ahmed Rajpar is a habitual offender and involved in 05 similar References, which is pending against him before the trial court. The witnesses are in attendance, as such trial is likely to be concluded shortly. In these circumstances, any observation regarding merit or otherwise at this stage would prejudice the case of either party. The reliance is placed on the case of Muhammad Nawaz Vs. the State 2002 SCMR 1381, where the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan has held that:

'Since, the trial is likely to be concluded in the near future as such, we are deliberately not attending to the merits of the case lest it may prejudice the case of either party. In this view of the matter, we are not inclined to grant concession of post-arrest bail to the petition at this stage".

8. Considering the above facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the considered view that learned counsel for the applicants/accused has failed to make out a case for grant of bail as there is sufficient material available on record to connect them with the commission of the alleged offences, hence we do not find a fit case for grant of bail to the applicants/accused. Resultantly the captioned bail applications stand dismissed.

9. Needless, to mention here, the observations made hereinabove are tentative in nature and would not prejudice the case of either party at trial.

Judge

Irfan/PA