ORDER SHEET

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH, KARACHI

C.P No.D-4290 of 2014

______________________________________________________

Order with signature of Judge

Present

Mr. Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar

Mr. Justice Muhammad Iqbal Kalhoro

Faizan Ahmed Siddiqui …………….Versus…………...NAB

Date of hearing 10.07.2015

Mr. Khawaja Naveed Ahmed Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Noor Mohammad Dayo A.D.P.G NAB.

Mohammad Nasir I.O of the case.

---

Mohammad Ali Mazhar J. The petitioner has applied for post arrest bail in NAB Reference No.09 of 2014 in which he has been nominated as accused No.4. During investigation, it revealed that the petitioner along with co-accused persons used to induce general public to deposit their savings with them for the purpose of investment in Modarba business under the garb of Islamic mode of investment. 112 persons deposited their savings with accused No.1 and accused No.2 but they have cheated and defrauded the public. The allegation against the present petition is that the accused No.1 transferred Rs.45 Million from Shafiq Cable Merchant to the account of petitioner as such embezzled the invested amount in connivance with each other. In paragraph No.9 of the Reference, the NAB has determined the liability of each accused separately and

according to calculation, the liability of the amount against the present petitioner is Rs.45 Million.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that this court has already granted bail to the co-accused Mohammad Inam and Shafiq-ur-Rehman subject to furnishing tangible security equivalent to the liability worked out by the NAB against them and besides furnishing tangible security, they have also furnished solvent sureties as directed by this court. Copy of order passed in C.P No.D-3294 of 2014 and 2885 of 2014 are available on record. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that keeping in view the rule of consistency, the present petitioner is also agreed to furnish tangible security equivalent to the amount of Rs.45 Million if he is enlarged on bail. He further argued that petitioner is behind the bar since 22.07.2014 and up till now, only charge has been framed by the learned Accountability Court and not a single witness has been examined. He further argued that there is no likelihood of conclusion of trial in near future and the petitioner is languishing in jail without trial.

4. On the contrary, learned A.D.P.G NAB argued that no doubt that the co-accused Mohammad Inam and Shafiq-ur-Rehman have been granted bail by this court but still he opposed the grant of bail and shown us only a copy of cheque and bank statement to demonstrate that the petitioner withdrew Rs.10 Million from his account who had active role in the commission of offence and was involved in the scam.

5. Heard the arguments. In response to a cheque shown by D.P.G NAB that the petitioner Faizan Ahmed Siddiqui withdrew Rs.10 Million, the learned counsel for the petitioner pointed out para-3 of the memo of petition to show that petitioner wanted to get visa of U.S.A for which he was required to show some deposit in his bank account therefore his brother in law requested Shafiq-ur-Rehman to transfer money in the bank account of petitioner and keep the cheque book with him so that the petitioner may be able to build up his financial profile for the purpose of visa facilitation. He also pointed out para-9 of the NAB Reference, though the liability of petitioner Faizan Ahmed Siddiqui has been fixed in sum of Rs.45 Million but it is clearly mentioned in the table showing the liability that no complaint was received against the petitioner from any alleged investors.

6.We have also noted that in the investigation report, it is stated that the petitioner is beneficiary of the said scam but except one cheque and copy of bank statement in relation to one transaction, nothing has been produced. No direct allegation of cheating the general public is leveled against the present petitioner but it is clear from the reference that the main allegations are against the accused No.1 and 2 and under what circumstances, the accused No.1 transferred the money in the account of petitioner is required further inquiry keeping in view the stand taken by the petitioner in relation to his visa facilitation and transfer of money on this account. Though in order to prove the guilt of the present petitioner, matter requires further inquiry but the petitioner on his own will agrees to furnish tangible security as directed earlier in the case of co-accused persons. The prosecution in order to make out a case for refusal of bail to an accused is primarily supposed to place on record material on basis of which he is believed to be involved in a non-bailable offence, but in absence of such material the court for the purpose of releasing the accused on bail, instead of dilating upon the facts of the case in details, can dispose of the matter by holding that his detention is unjustified or unreasonable. Reference can be made to PLD 1996 S.C. 241 & PLD 2002 S.C. 572.

7. It is also an admitted fact the petitioner is behind the bar since 22.7.2014 and no substantial progress has been shown by the NAB counsel whereas the mandate of Section 16 of NAO 1999 provides that the case shall be heard from day to day and shall be disposed of within 30 days. It is well settled that deeper appreciation of evidence is not permissible at bail stage simultaneously it is also well settled that 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 entitled to expeditious access to justice, which includes a right to fair an expeditious trial without any unreasonable and inordinate delay. The intention of law is that the criminal case must be disposed of without unnecessary delay it is not difficult to comprehend that inordinate delay in imparting justice is likely to cause erosion of public confidence in the judicial system on one hand and on the other hand it is bound to create a sense of helplessness, despair feeling of frustration and anguish apart from adding to their woes and miseries. Reference can be made to orders authored by one of us (Muhammad Ali Mazhar-J) in the case of Ali Anwar Ruk, Abdul Jabbar, Syed Mansoor Ali and Sardar Amin Farooqui reported in 2014 SBLR 766, PLJ 2014 Karachi 251=2014 CrLJ 777, PLJ 2014 Karachi 254=2014 UC 784 and PLJ 2014 Karachi 268.

8. As a result of above discussion, the petitioner Faizan Ahmed Siddiqui is granted bail in Reference No.09/2014 subject to furnishing solvent surety in the sum of Rs.500,000/= (Rupees Five Lacs Only) with P.R. bond in the like amount and in addition to the surety, the petitioner shall also furnish tangible security in the sum of Rs.45 Million to the satisfaction of the Nazir of this Court. The petitioner shall also deposit his original valid Passport with the Nazir of this Court and shall not leave the country without express permission of the trial court. The above observations are tentative in nature and shall not prejudice the case of either party in the Accountability Court. The petition stands disposed of.

Judge