1. ' In this Constitutional petition, following prayer has been made:--
(1) To declare that in view of above facts and grounds the detention of "Detenue" is illegal, and it amounts to be an abuse of process of law.
(2) To order release, on bail accused Rohail Siddiquie pending trial on furnishing solvent sureties.
(3) Any other order which this Hon'ble Court deems fit and just.
2. ' The brief facts of the case relevant for disposal of this Constitutional petition are that petitioner is facing trial before Accountability Court No,1, Sindh at Karachi along with other accused on a Reference bearing No,25 of 2003 under section 9(a)(iii)(iv)(vi) and section 10 of National Accountability Bureau Ordinance, 1999. The main accused Izhar Hussain Siddiqui (Now dead) was Postmaster, Kachheri Branch Post Office, Karachi from 1984 to 1995. The charge against him, amongst others, is that while performing his duties in his above capacity he received deposits from a number of Post Office account holders but he did not make necessary entries in the saving bank journal/ledger maintained in the Post Office with mala fide intention by corruption and corrupt practice and misappropriated the amount. The total misappropriated amount runs in crores.
3. Present petitioner is brother of the above named deceased Izhar Hussain Siddiqui and the allegations against him are that he in collusion with his deceased brother participated in utilized the misappropriated amount in business. The trial has not yet concluded and it is stated that a huge number of witnesses are yet to be examined which is likely to take indefinite time in conclusion of the trial, hence the present petition has been filed with the prayers, reproduced as above.
4. ' We have heard Miss Shaista Shamim, learned counsel for petitioner and Mr. Shafat Nabi K.
5. Sherwani, learned DPG for NAB, Sindh and with their assistance we have gone through the material made available before us.
6. ' During the course of arguments, Miss Shaista Shamim, learned counsel for petitioner pressed into service following two grounds:--
(i) That a list of 279 witnesses was cited in the Reference filed by Chairman, National Accountability Bureau out of which the Prosecution has been able to examine only 26 witnesses and that there is no likelihood of the conclusion of the trial in near future while the petitioner is languishing in Jail since the day of arrest i,e, 30-3-2002; and
(ii) That P.W. 25 Mrs. Abdul Khalique and P.W.26 Gulzar Hyee were not shown in the list of witnesses; yet, on an application under section 540, Cr.P.C. Moved by the prosecution they were examined.
7. Their evidence does not, ex facie, involve the present petitioner in the commission of alleged crime.
8. ' To rebut the above contentions, Mr. Shafat Nabi K. Sherwani, learned DPG for respondent NAB has argued that the evidence of the witnesses is being recorded by producing the witnesses before the Court regularly and that the petitioner is involved in the alleged offences which is evident from the evidence of two above mentioned witnesses, hence the petitioner is not entitled to be released on bail. He has further argued that even otherwise, at this stage, no elaborate sifting of evidence could be made; only a tentative assessm ent of the same could be made and that on that exercise being undertaken it is prima facie clear that the petitioner is involved in the alleged offences.
9. ' We have gone through the evidence of above named two witnesses and find that the petitioner had entered into agreements as regards investment of finance with the above named two witnesses. These agreements have been produced as Exh.39/1 to 39/11 and Exh.14/28 respectively in the evidence of above-named two witnesses. On a cursory view of these agreements, we find that the same have been signed by petitioner. Whether his signature is genuine or not and whether the petitioner entered into agreements with the above named two witnesses by using the misappropriated amount can only be considered in the above stated circumstances after conclusion of trial. Mr. Shafat Nabi K. Sherwani as referred to above has stated in his arguments that no elaborate sifting of evidence could be made at the time of grant of bail. In this behalf, he has placed reliance on the case of Mrs. Riaz Qayyum v. The State reported in 2004 SCM R 1889.
10. Therefore, at this stage refraining from making any observation not to prejudice case of either parties, we are of the view that petitioner is not entitled to grant of bail. Accordingly, we dismiss this petition.