1. ' ZIA PERWEZ, J.--- Through these applications, applicants Raza Muhammad Bhutto and Mushtaq Ahmed Qureshi seek bail before arrest in Crime. No,GO:6/05 to GO:24/05 all registered with A.C.E.
2. Kotri under sections 467, 468, 471, 477-A, 420, 34, P.P.C. Read with section 5(2) Act II of 1947.
3. ' Brief facts of the case are that on direction of this Court in Criminal Bail Application No,293 of 2004, Additional Advocate-General Hyderabad, after verifying/scrutinizing the Revenue Record of Taluka Thana Bola Khan, furnished a report showing 20 entries of Deh Kalo Khohar and Hatal Duth to be fake and bogus. On undertaking given by the Senior Member Board of Revenue in Court an inquiry was conducted wherein the applicants were exonerated, however, in subsequent inquiry they were found to be involved in the offences, as stated above.
4. ' Mr. M. Ilyas Khan and Mr. Mahmood A. Qureshi, learned counsel appearing for the applicants, argued that the applicants have approached this Court without exhausting their remedy before the learned trial Court as they have apprehension of humiliation and harassment by the Anti- Corruption. Police. They argued that this Court has discretion to exercise the power of hearing a bail in the special circumstances, as available in the present case. They argued that the entries were alleged to be bogus and fake by order dated 11-3-2005 and on the basis of the same F.I.Rs, were lodged. The said order was challenged in C.P. No,1329 of 2005 before. This Court and the same was set aside, hence on 'the basis of the, same, no action. Could be taken against the applicants, including registration of the instant F.I.Rs, While referring the findings recorded in the previous inquiry, as shown in letter dated ,26-11-2004 (Annexure "B" to the application), they argued that applicants have been exonerated, which fact is also mentioned in the F.I.R., thus the case of the applicants is of further inquiry and they are entitled to the concession of bail. There is delay in lodging of the F.I.R. The initiation of second investigation is mala fide and due to the fact that the applicants refused w be the witness on behalf of the Anti-Corruption Police. In support of their contentions, they relied upon the cases of Rais Wazir Ahmed v. The State 2004 SCM R 1167, Raza Muhammad Sial v. The State 1988 SCM R 1223, Tariq Bashir v. The 'State PLD 1995 SC 34, Syed Amir Ahmed Hashmi v. The State PLD 2004 Kar. 617 and Saeed Ahmed v. The State 1996 SCMR 1432.
5. ' Mr. Mir Qasim Jatt, learned State Counsel, by referring to the contents of bail applications has stated that the applicants have filed this application on apprehension of humiliation and harassm ent. He has opposed the grant of bail to the applicants. He contended that the applicants are involved in acts of corruption by entering false and fake entries in the Revenue Record. In order dated 11-3-2005 it has been specifically held that the applicants are involved in the case and as such prima facie case is made out thus the applicants are not entitled to the concession of bail.
6. I have heard the arguments of the learned counsel and perused the material available on,record.
7. At the very outset it is an admitted position that in earlier inquiry the applicants have been exonerated and the order dated 11-3-2005, on the strength of which the F.I.Rs, were lodged, has been set aside by the Division Bench of this Court in C.P. No,1329 of 2005 by order dated 27-10-2005.
8. In view of conflicting orders and views available on record, and furthermore after recall of order dated 11-3-2005 prima facie the material available with the prosecution connecting the applicants with the crime may require reconsideration on the basis of evidence. Accordingly, the interim bail earlier granted to the applicants on 10-12-2005 is hereby confirmed on the same terms as stated in the said order.