1. ' The brief facts out of which the present writ petition arises are that the petitioner is involved in Reference No.2(10)I&M-NAB(R)/2000 dated 30-8-2000. Warrant of arrest has allegedly been issued by respondent No.2 for arrest of the petitioner in the said Reference. The petitioner being aggrieved filed this writ petition with the following prayer:-- "In these circumstances it is respectfully prayed that the writ may kindly be issued directing the respondents not to arrest the petitioner in the above-cited Reference by allowing him pre-arrest bail in the titled matter.
2. ' It is further prayed that during the pendency of writ petition in hand the petitioner may be admitted to ad interim pre-arrest bail till the final disposal of the case."
2. Learned counsel of the petitioner submits that respondent No.2 has involved the petitioner in Reference No.30 of 2001 along with other co-accused. The petitioner was arrested in the said Reference by the respondent and the petitioner remained behind the bars for nine months. The petitioner was subsequently released on bail and ultimately he was acquitted in the said Reference by the Judge Accountability Court Rawalpindi/Islamabad vide judgment dated 11-12-2003. The respondent has mala fide and in connivance with the employees of WAPDA filed Reference No.2(10)I&M-NAB(R)/2000 dated 30-8-2000 on the same allegations. He further submits that according to the allegations levelled in the Reference in question the WAPDA employees were entrusted with electrification work at Village Kot Galla, that the WAPDA employees had withdrawn the material excess in quantity, that the said material was not utilized at the site and some deficient material was installed at the spot. The allegations levelled in the Reference in question are that completion reports were prepared. By the WAPDA employees and the petitioner was SDO at the relevant time. He further urges that petitioner has not committed any offence as the allegations levelled by the respondents against the petitioner are absolutely false and frivolous.
3. The petitioner has not prepared the report in violation of the Rules and Regulations of the WAPDA Authorities and has performed his duties in accordance with law. This fact is fully established in the judgment of Accountability Court dated 11-12-2003 passed in Reference No.30 of 2001. He further submits that NAB Department being in league with the officials of WAPDA Authorities and mala fide implicated the petitioner in the said Reference. He further urges that this Court has ample jurisdiction to grant bail to the petitioner. In support of his contention he relied upon the following judgments:-- ' Khan Asfand Yar Wali v. Federation of Pakistan (PLD 2001 SC 607).
4. ' Hassan Raza v. The State (2003 MLD 729).
5. ' He further submits that this Court has ample jurisdiction to grant protective bail to the petitioner to approach the Lahore High Court Rawalpindi Bench for grant of ad interim bail. In support of his contention he relied upon Sabir Hussain v. The State (1999 MLD 2208) and Syed Ijaz Ali Shah Shirazi v. The State (2002 YLR 68).
6. ' Learned law officer submits that petitioner has not attached a single document to show that Reference No.2(10)I&M-NAB(R)/2000 dated 30-8-2000 and Reference No.30 of 2001 relate to the same incident. He further submits that petitioner has not mentioned a single document to show that respondent has initiated proceedings against the petitioner to arrest him, the petitioner has not attached copies of Reference No.2(10)I&M-NAB(R)/2000 dated 30-8-2000 and Reference No.30 of 2001 for comparison purposes to show that the allegations and evidence in both the References are same and related to the same incident. He further submits that petitioner has not attached even copy of warrant of arrest with the writ petition. He further submits that petitioner has not mentioned any specific allegation against respondent No.2. The general allegation of malice is not sustainable in the eye of law. He further submits that petitioner has not mentioned a single incident in the contents of the writ petition that respondent has raided his house for the purpose of arresting him.
7. ' Learned counsel of the petitioner in rebuttal submits that contention of the learned law officer that petitioner has not attached copy of Reference with the Constitutional petition and warrant of arrest is not in accordance with law laid down by this Court in Razia Shaheen v. The State (PLD 1997 Lahore 659)
8. ' We have given our anxious consideration to the contentions of the learned counsel of the parties and perused the record.
9. ' The plea of the counsel of the petitioner to allow the petitioner protective bail has no merit as the Accountability Court has no jurisdiction to grant such bail to the petitioner in view of the provisions of National Accountability Bureau Ordinance, 1999. The petitioner has filed Constitutional petition in Rawalpindi Bench of this Court which was transmitted to the Principal seat vide order dated 11-8- 2004 which is reproduced hereunder:-- "In view of the report of the Deputy Registrar (Judicial) the case is to be placed before D.B. To be constituted by the Hon'ble Chief Justice. Learned counsel for the petitioner insists that the bail petition be entertained by this Court. The petition be placed before the Hon'ble Chief Justice for necessary action."
10. ' The petition was entertained at Principal seat by the order of the Honourable Chief Justice as is depicted from note dated 19-8-2004 of Deputy Registrar (Judi.). The plea to grant protective bail to the petitioner till fixation of this Constitutional petition before the Division Bench specially constituted to hear such type of cases at Lahore High Court Rawalpindi Bench has no force in view of the law laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court in Syed Ahmad Ali Rizvi v. State (PLD 1995 SC 500). This Court has ample jurisdiction to entertain the Constitutional petition for grant of bail to the accused persons facing charges under NAB Ordinance as the law laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court in the following judgments:-- ' Asif Baig Mahmood's case (2004 SCMR 91). Khan Asfand Yar Wali's case (PLD 2001 SC 607).
11. It is settled proposition of law in view of Article 13 of the Constitution that one cannot be tried and punished twice for the charge based on the same allegation and evidence in the same transaction. There can be nb bar in filing the separate References in the separate transactions involving the similar allegation but one cannot be charged for the second time for the same allegation on the basis of same evidence. It is pertinent to mention here that petitioner has not attached copies of both the References for comparison of this Court i.e. Reference No.2(10)I&M NAB(R)/2000 dated 30-8-2000 and the second Reference No.30 of 2001 in which the petitioner was acquitted. The petitioner has filed this petition in the year 2004. It is not believable that petitioner has not received copy of Reference till date whereas the petitioner has mentioned salient features of Reference dated 30-8-2000 in para. 1 of the Constitutional petition which is not possible to narrate the facts qua the reference in question without perusing the contents of the Reference. The Honourable Supreme Court has laid clown the following principle in Khan Asfand Yar Wali's case supra:-- "197. It was held in the case of Zafar Ali Shah (supra) that the powers of the Superior Courts under Article 199 of the Constitution remain available to their full extent... ...Notwithstanding anything contained in any legislative instrument enacted by the Chief Executive. Whereas, section 9(b) of the NAB Ordinance purports to deny to all Courts, including the High Court, the jurisdiction under sections 426, 491, 497, 498 and 561-A or any other provision of the Code of Criminal Procedure or any other law for the time being in force, to grant bail to any person accused of an offence under NAB Ordinance. It is well-settled that the Superior Courts have the power to grant bail under Article 199 of the Constitution, independent of any statutory source of jurisdiction such as section 497 of the Criminal Procedure Code, section 9(b) of the NAB Ordinance to that extent is ultra vires the Constitution."
12. ' The Honourable Supreme Court has also considered the aforesaid proposition of law in Chaudhry Zahoor Ellahi's case (PLD 1977 SC 273).
13. ' The relevant observation is as follows:-- "The High Court under Article 199 of the Constitution has unquestionably this power and should exercise this jurisdiction when the question of liberty of a citizen is involved even when the High Court has before it only application under section 498, Cr.P.C."
14. It is settled principle of law that the scope of power under Article 199 of the Constitution cannot be enlarged to extend a deeper analysis of the evidence and perusal of facts through deep scrutiny to hold a person innocent and then declare his arrest and detention in a criminal case illegal and without lawful authority to grant him bail. The aforesaid proposition of law was considered by this Court by the then Honourable Chief Justice of Lahore High Court Sardar Muhammad Iqbal in Syed Muzaffar Hussain's case (PLD 1974 Lahore 242). The relevant observation is as follows:-- "It is manifest that the rule does not contemplate that the Court must hold that the accused person is innocent and then admit him to bail. If this had been the intention, then the very concept of bail under the Defence of Pakistan Rules would be negated. In view of the allegations made in a report against an accused person it may be most difficult, if not impossible, to hold in any case that a person is positively innocent. Moreover, a person cannot be held to be innocent in proceedings for bail because if the Courts are to do so, they will have to scan the whole record and pass judgment, which will indubitably be wrong in a case where truth or falsity of the allegation is yet to be determined in the light of the evidence which may have to be led. It will be against the fundamental principles of jurisprudence and the concept of justice to permit such a course of action. It is, in fact, the duty of the Court to ensure that nothing is said in the order or judgment which may prejudge an issue, because it may prejudice either of the parties and also affect the objectivity of the judicial officer."
15. ' Muhammad Afzal Zullah J. (as he then was) laid down following principle to grant ad interim bail in Sheikh Zahoor Ahmad's case (PLD 1974 Lahore 256):-- "10. The main conditions to be satisfied before exercise of jurisdiction to allow pre-arrest bail under section 498, Cr.P.C., are-- ' that there should be a genuine proved apprehension of imminent arrest with the effect of virtual restraint on the petitioner; ' that, the petitioner should physically surrender to the Court; ' that on account of ulterior motives, particularly on the .Part of the police, there should 'be apprehension of harassm ent and undue irreparable humiliation by means of unjustified arrest; ' that it should be otherwise a fit case on merits for exercise of discretion in favour of the petitioner for the purpose of bail. In this behalf the provisions contained in section 497, Cr.P.C. Would have to be kept in mind; ' that unless there is reasonable explanation, the petitioner should have earlier moved the Sessions Court for the same relief under section 498, Cr.P.C."
16. ' The aforesaid judgment of this Court was upheld by the Honourable Supreme Court after considering all the case-law on the subject in Murad Khan's case (PLD 1983 SC 82). It is also settled principle of law that general allegations of mala fide are not sustainable in the eye of law as the law laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court in Saeed Ahmad Khan's case (PLD 1974 SC 151) and Aman Ullah Khan's case (PLD. 1990 SC 1092). It is settled principle of law that each and every case is to be decided on its peculiar circumstances and facts as the law laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court in Trustees of Board of Karachi's case (1994 SCMR 2213). The bail was granted in Razia Shaheen v. The State (PLD 1997 Lahore 659) wherein the complainant was Deputy Commissioner and the F.I.R. In the case had been sealed. In the present case there is no allegation that reference in question has been sealed by the Competent Authority. The petitioner, as mentioned above, has not attached copy of Reference in question and warrant of arrest issued by respondent No.2 for arrest of the petitioner coupled with the fact that petitioner has not mentioned a single sentence in the contents of the Constitutional petition that respondent No.2 or his officers/officials have raided the house of the petitioner for the purpose of arresting him. Therefore, the case of the petitioner does not fall within the parameters prescribed by this Court in Sheikh Zahoor Ahmad's case (PLD 1974 Lahore 256).
17. In view of what has been discussed above, we do not find any merit in the Constitutional petition and the same is dismissed with no order as to costs.