IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH AT KARACHI
Cr. Bail Application No.716 of 2025
Cr. Bail
Application No.788 of 2025
|
DATE |
ORDER WITH
SIGNATUREs OF JUDGEs |
For
hearing of bail applications
---------------------------------------------
21.05.2025
Mr. Taha
Abdul Samad, advocate for applicant in B.A. 716/2025
Mr. Nisar
Ahmed Tarar, advocate for applicant in B.A. 788/2025
Mr. Noor Muhammad Dayo, Assistant Attorney General
------------------------------------
Applicants/accused
Muhammad Saleem son of Muhammad Bilal, Danish son of
Abdul Latif (in Cr. B.A. 716/2025) and Syed Kamran
Ali son of Syed Mushtaq Ali (in Cr.B.A.
No.788/2025) seek post arrest bail in FIR No.16/2024, registered at P.S. FIA
Anti-Corruption Circle, Karachi for offence under sections 409, 419, 420, 468,
471, 109, 34 PPC read with Section 5(2) of the PCA 1947, after rejection of
their bail plea by learned Special Judge (Central-II), Karachi vide orders
dated 27.01.2025 and 20.12.2024.
2. Briefly
the facts of the prosecution case are that Enquiry No.48/2022 of FIA ACC,
Karachi was registered and conducted upon order of Hon'ble
High Court of Sindh, Karachi filed by the members of Pakistan Audit Department
Employees Cooperative Housing Society, Karachi. During enquiry/investigation it
surfaced that present applicant/accused in connivance with accused Abdul Salam Mandhro and others involved in illegal grabbing of Pakistan
Audit Department Employees Cooperative Housing Society (PADECHS) as well as
Telephone Employees Cooperative Society through engineered election of
Societies and then sold fake files of plots of PADECHS to innocent peoples,
thus caused loss to general public and gain undue benefit for himself and
others as well.
3. Learned
counsel for applicants/accused mainly argued that applicants are innocent and
they have been falsely implicated in this case; that after usual investigation
IO cited 27 accused in challan, out of them 11 accused
were granted bail by learned trial Court whereas 9 accused were granted post
arrest bail by this Court vide orders dated 02.09.2024 and 11.03.2025. Learned
counsel for applicants mainly contended that the case of present
applicants/accused is on identical footing and prosecution has not challenged
the bail granting order to the next forum, hence rule of consistency is applied
in this case.
4. Learned
Assistant Attorney General opposed for grant of bail on the ground that
applicants/accused have actively participated in the commission of alleged offence
in connivance of main accused Abdul Salam Mandhro,
therefore, they are not entitled for grant of bail.
5. Heard
learned counsel for applicants/accused, learned Assistant Attorney General and
perused the material available on record.
6. It
is matter of record that this Court has granted bail to 9 accused persons vide
orders dated 02.09.2024 and 11.03.2025 and the role of present applicants is
identical to the role assigned to co-accused who were
granted bail by this Court. It has been confirmed by learned Assistant Attorney
General that bail granting orders have not been challenged before the next
forum. The alleged offence does not fall within the prohibitory clause of
Section 497, Cr.PC; challan
has already been submitted; applicants are no more required for further investigation,
hence no purpose would be served if they are kept in custody. Since co-accused
have already been granted bail by this Court, the rule of consistency is
applied in this case, therefore, applicants/accused above named are admitted to
post arrest bail, subject to their submitting solvent surety in the sum of
Rs.100,000/- (Rupees One Hundred Thousand) each,
and P.R. Bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court.
7. Needless
to mention here that the observations made herein above are tentative in
nature, the same would not prejudice the case of either party at trial.
J U D G E
Gulsher/PS