1. ' By an order dated 20-11-2003, while dismissing application for grant of bail, filed by Sahibzada Beena Ahmed and Najam Tanseer in Cr.B.A. No.678 of 2003 and Abdul Waheed Siddiqui in Cr. B.A.
2. No.739 of 2003, show-cause notice was ordered to be issued to Lal Muhammad Kalhoro, Ex- Mukhtiarkar, Muhammad Ashraf and Ali Murad, Superivsors, Shah Muhammad Khushk, Hafeezullah Kalwar, Ali Azhar Kalwar, Sharafuddin Shaikh, Muhammad Younis and Ghulam Hussain Kalwar, Nadeem Memon, Khalil Ahmed and Sabir Ali, Tapedars, (hereinafter called as 'co-accused') as to why their bail should not be cancelled on the basis of following observations:-- ----That the whole prosecution case is based on the collusion, collaboration and conspiracies with the public servants and in case they would not have taken advantage of their official capacity, private persons were not in a position to play such a huge fraud. Offence committed by those co- accused who were holding public offices and even one retired public servant played a fraud with the collusion of private persons whose bail has already been dismissed, can be held to be directed against the society and they were not involved in an ordinary criminal matter. Besides, their case also attracts section 409, P.P.C. Punishment Of which goes up to life imprisonment and I am afraid that how the Special Judge Anti-Corruption (Prov.) Karachi showed his extraordinary discretion by granting pre-arrest bail to the persons who are the main pillars of the prosecution case.
3. ' In response to said notice, vakalatnamas of Messrs Shafi Muhammadi and Ghulam Raza Khokhar were filed on behalf of the co-accused and matter was being adjourned on the ground that since the applicants, (Sahibzada Beena Ahmed and Najam Tanseer in Criminal Bail Application No.678 of 2003 and Abdul Waheed Siddiqui in Criminal Bail Application No.739 of 2003) had approached the Honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan for grant of bail, this matter may be adjourned till the decision of the apex Court.
4. ' However, on 28-6-2004, Honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan passed the following order in Criminal Petition No.101-K of 2003:-- "This petition for leave to appeal has been filed against the judgment dated 20th November, 2003 passed by the High Court of Sindh, Karachi in Criminal Bail Applications Nos.678 and 739 of 2003 wh.:.Reby bail applications filed by petitioners have been dismissed.
(2) Learned counsel stated that as challan of the case has been submitted, therefore, petitioners contemplate to approach the trial Court for the redressal of their grievance, as such he sought permission to withdraw, the instant petition. Other side has expressed no objection.
5. ' In view of the statement so made by learned counsel for the petitioners, petition is dismissed as withdrawn. Needless to observe that if any application for grant of bail is submitted by the petitioners before the trial Court, that shall be disposed of independently without being influenced in any manner from the observation made by the learned High Court in the impugned judgment."
6. ' I have heard and considered the submissions of both the learned counsel appearing on behalf of co-accused and the learned counsel appearing for the State and have also gone through the record.
7. ' The conclusion of order dated 20-11-2003, passed by this Court consisted of two parts, first being dismissal of application for grant of bail, moved by Sahibzada Beena Ahmed and Najam Tanseer in Criminal Bail Application No.678 of 2003 and Abdul Waheed Siddiqui in Criminal Bail Application No.739 of 2003 and second being the suo motu observations about the grant of pre-arrest bail by the Special Judge, Anti-Corruption (Prov.), Karachi to co-accused. It is pertinent to mention here that the Honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan by its order dated 28-6-2004 only disposed of the application of those applicants permitting them to approach trial Court in view of changed circumstances i.e. Filing of interim challan by the prosecution. Nowhere the Honourable Supreme Court has touched the observations about issuance- of show-cause notice to co-accused.
8. Learned counsel appearing for co-accused have only advanced the submission that since the prosecution has filed interim challan, let this matter may be adjourned sine die and may be taken up when after filing of final challan some evidence is recorded and the roles of co-accused come on record as to who had played role and to what extent. Learned counsel for the State has opposed this proposition.
9. During the course of investigation, sufficient material/record came at the surface against the persons namely Lal Muhammad Kalhoro, Muhammad Ashraf Ali Murad, Khalil Ahmed, Shah Muhammad Khushk, Hafeezullah Kalwar, Ali Azhar Kalwar, Nadeem Memon, Sahfiuddin Shaikh, Muhammad Younis, Sabir Ali, Ghulam Hussain Kalwar and Ghulam Hussain Kalwar and the punishment of the offence with which they have been charged goes up to life imprisonment. This is an offence through which public at large has been defrauded by not only private persons but also by the persons of State Authorities who are responsible to give safeguard to the right of the citizens but in the present case the people have been hit by the role played by those persons of the State Authorities. The desire to amass wealth by illegal means has penetrated in all walks of life. The people commit offences detrimental to the society and the country for money. In such a situation, approach of the Court should be reformation-oriented with the desire to suppress the above mischiefs. To achieve the above objective, it is imperative that the Courts should apply strictly the laws which, are designed and intended to eradicate the above national evils.
10. Accordingly, I am of the considered view that the Special Judge Anti-Corruption (Prov.), Karachi had wrongly granted pre-arrest bail to co-accused which is hereby cancelled. The trial Court is directed to ensure the arrest of the co-accused.
11. Pre-arrest bail cancelled.