ORDER SHEET
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH AT KARACHI.
Crl. Bail Appllication Nos. 1533/2013, 1555/2013, 1557/2013, 26/2014, 27/2014, 211/2014, 212/2014, 213/2014, 214/2014, 215/2014, 216/2014, 217/2014, 218/2014, 219/2014, 220/2014, 221/2014, 222/2014, 223/2014 & 224/2014.
Abdul Kabeer Kazi …………..……...V.……….……….State
Date of haring 30.10.2014
Mr. Abdul Hafeez Advocate for the applicant.
Applicant is also present in court.
Mr. Mohammad Aslam Butt.
Inspector Anwar Shah, Inspector Deedar Shaikh, SIP Adnan Dilawar & SIP Rahat Khan I.Os of the case.
Muhammad Ali Mazhar, J. Through the aforesaid bail applications, the applicant has applied for pre-arrest bail in Crime Nos. 53/2013, 54/2013, 61/2013, 64/2013, 65/2013, 16/2013, 18/2013, 19/2013, 41/2013, 66/2013, 67/2013, 68/2013, 69/2013, 70/2013, 71/2013, 72/2013, 73/2013, 74/2013 and 75/2013. All FIRs have been lodged at P.S F.I.A Crime Circle, Karachi under Section 409,420,468,471 & 109 P.P.C read with Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act.
2. The brief facts of the case are that FIA conducted Enquiry No.33/2013 on receipt of written complaint dated 06.08.2013 from Section Officer, Ministry of Commerce which pertained to misappropriation and corrupt practices into the incentive scheme including opening retail sale outlet abroad in order to promote Pakistan’s export brand and retail operation in export market under Trade Policy 2005-2006 announced by Ministry of Commerce, Government of Pakistan. Under the incentive scheme, Government had decided to provide support to the extent of 75%, 50%, 25% and 10% to the reasonable cost of the retail sale outlet in the first, second, third and fourth year respectively and incentive was continued under the trade policy.
3. The learned counsel for the applicant argued that the applicant was holding additional charge of Secretary, TDAP. He was given the charge on 15.08.2012 and he continued additional charge till 10.07.2013 without any involvement in the corruption or misappropriation of the government funds. He also referred to the bail confirmation order of the then Secretary TDAP Mirza Kareem Baig and argued that keeping in view the rule of consistency, the applicant is also entitled for the confirmation of bail.
4. On the other hand, learned D.A.G with the assistance of the I.Os argued that according to the inquiry, the applicant had verified some claims but at the same time, he further argued that the bail of the earlier secretary as well as C.E.O have already been confirmed by this court. To a specific question raised by this court to the learned DAG as to whether they have collected any piece of evidence against the applicant in which he is found to be involved in any misappropriation or he gained any monitory benefit from misappropriated amount? The learned DAG conceded that no such evidence is available, however, he argued that that applicant had only an administrative role. He conceded his no objection for the confirmation of bail in the same lines in which the bail of the then Secretary Mirza Kareem Baig was confirmed.
5. Let me reproduce the excerpts from the order passed by me on 23.9.2014 in the Crl. Bail Application Nos. 1322/2013, 1707, 1705, 1704, 1703, 1708, 1709, 1710, 1712, 1713, 1714, 1715 & 1716 of 2014, (Mirza Kareem Baig Vs. State) which are as under:-
“11. At this juncture, I would like to quote bail orders authored by me in some other cases which are reported as under:-
(1) 2012 YLR 633 (Kashif Raza v. The State). Section 498. Pre-arrest bail. Basic concept of bail is that liberty of an innocent person is not to be curtailed until and unless proved otherwise. Pre-arrest bail can be extended to a person who does not, prime facie, appear to have committed a non-bailable offence or there is room for further probe into his guilt within the meaning of Section 497 (2). Cr.P.C.
(2) 2012 P.Cr.L.J. 1601 (Shahid Ali Dharejo v. The State). Section 497/498. Deep appraisal and detailed discussion of evidence at bail stage so as to prejudice the merits of the case of either party at the trial is not permitted and expression of the opinion on merits of the case was deprecated. Courts cannot cross the barrier of permissible limits of law while making tentative assessment of the evidence at the bail stage.
(3) 2012 P Cr. L.J 1181 (Muhammad Arshad v. The State). In this case, the dictum laid down in the case of Rana Muhammad Arshad v. Muhammad Rafique (PLD 2009 SC 427), was quoted in which the honorable Supreme Court held that in a proper case, the High court has power under Section 498, Criminal Procedure Code, to make an order that a person who is suspected of an offence for which he may be arrested by a Police Officer or a court, shall be admitted to bail. The exercise of this power should, however, be confined to cases in which not only a good prima facie ground is made out for the grant of bail in respect of the offence alleged, but also it should be shown that if the petitioner were to be arrested and refused bail, such an order would in all probability, be made not from motives of furthering the ends of justice in relation to the case, but from some ulterior motive, and with the object of injuring the petitioner, or that the petitioner would in such an eventuality suffer irreparable harm.
(4) 2012 M.L.D 574 (Suleman v. The State). Sections 497 & 498 Cr.P.C. Deeper appreciation of material placed on record was not required at bail stage. In order to reach at some logical conclusion, court could tentatively assess the material available on record to find out whether accused was entitled for the grant of bail or not.
12. A person can be charged for criminal breach of trust under Section 409 P.P.C, if he is a public servant, banker, merchant or agent. Delinquent can be punished with imprisonment for life or with imprisonment either description for a term which may extend to ten years with fine. Similarly, the charge of Section 420 and 468 P.P.C needs to be read with Section 109 P.P.C in this case. Whether the applicant has committed the above offences independently or as an abettor it needs to be thrashed out in the evidence which requires further inquiry. Object of trial is to make an accused to face the trial and not to punish an under trial prisoner. The basic idea is to enable the accused to answer criminal prosecution against him rather than to rot him behind the bar. Accused is also entitled to an expeditious access to justice, which includes a right to fair and expeditious trial”.
6. The role assigned or the allegations leveled against the applicant requires further inquiry. Consequently, the interim pre-arrest bail granted to the applicant in the aforesaid bail applications/crimes is hereby confirmed. However, he will regularly attend the trial court and will also surrender his original valid passport in the trial court. The applicant will not leave this country without the prior permission of trial court. The above findings are tentative in nature and shall not prejudice the case of either party. The bail applications are disposed of.
Judge