Petitioner Gul Hassan Saand has applied for pre-arrest bail in the investigation conducted by National Accountability Bureau Sindh, for accumulating wealth beyond known source of income acquired in his name.
Precisely, facts disclosed in the reference are that the petitioner is a government servant, currently working as Director Administration and Accounts Agricultural Department, Government of Sindh, Hyderabad, has acquired immovable properties in his name and in the names of his dependents and relatives. The petitioner had acquired/purchased the property showing less value, less construction cost detailed herein below:-- S.No.Year Detail of Property Purchase Value of purchased/construction cost declared by the accusedValue at the time of purchasePresent Market Value
1. 1994 Plot City Survey No.B-564, Matiari District HyderabadRs.20,000 Rs.91,455 Rs.2,81,500
2. 1995 Plot 1-A Qasimabad, HyderabadRs.100,000 Rs.547,000 Rs.10,25,000
3. 1997 Construction cost on plot No.827 City MatiariRs.62,000 Rs.217,742 ----
4. 1998 Construction cost on Plot No. 1-A, Qasimabad, Hyd.Rs.250,000 Rs.375,225 ----
5. 2000 Agriculture Land 15-23 acres in MatiariRs.428,528 Rs.2,725,625 Rs.31,00,000
6. 2000 Plot No.22 Sana/ Villas Housing Scheme Jamshoro, HyderabadRs.134,500 Rs.150,000 Rs.2,50,000
7. 2000 Plot City/Survey No.566, 567 in MatiariRs.157,000 Rs.258,720 Rs.5,88,000
8. 2001 Agricultural Land 51-02 acres Deh Sattar MatiariRs.1,090,000 Rs.8,933,750 Rs.1,02,00,000
9. 2002 Agricultural land 18-33 acres Deh Sattar MatiariRs.414,000 Rs.3,294,375 Rs.38,00,000
10. 2002 Construction cost on plot Nos.566, 567 in MatiariRs.450,000 Rs.634,782 ----
11. 2003 Construction cost of 1st floor on plot No.571 MatiariRs.800,000 Rs.800,000 ----
12. 2003 Agricultural land 5- 00 acres Deh Sattar MatiariRs.250,000 Rs.875,000 Rs.10,00,000
13. 2004 Again declare construction cost on Plot Nos.566, 567 in MatiariRs.450,000 ---- ---- It is averred from the statement regarding income/expenditure produced by the petitioner inflow/out flow charge was prepared no minus figure was reflected because the petitioner had shown less value of purchase as well as less construction cost.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that though during the investigation conducted by an authorized officer, the explanations were furnished by the petitioner in respect to income and expenditure year-wise from 1997 as per inflow and outflow chart yet with the mala fide intention the respondents have assessed the average value of the land purchased by the petitioner between Rs,40,000 to Rs,50,000 per acre, the matter was referred to Revenue Authority, who informed the respondent that the value of the land at the time of purchase was approximately between Rs,25,000 to Rs,30,000 per acre. It is urged that the seller of the immovable property has been examined by the Investigating Officer, matches to the value declared by the petitioner. It is urged that in the presence of registered documents and statements of the seller corroborated of such registered documents it would be unjust and illegal for the respondent to consider any other value for making out case against the petitioner. In support of the above contention reliance has been placed on the following case-law:--
(i) Abdul Haleem Lakho v. Abdul Karim alias Karim Bux and others 2005 SCMR 1539;
(ii) Ch. Tanveer Khan v. Chairman, National Accountability Bureau PLD 2002 SC 572;
(iii) Farukh Javed Ghumman v. The State PLD 2004 Lah. 155 It is urged that the conveyance deed executed in connection with the disputed properties bear the same price as contained in flow chart, the complaint has been filed by one Muhammad Alam having criminal rivalry as a case is pending before the competent criminal Court against the complainant and his family for abduction of the petitioner's son for ransom, who was killed. Mala fides on the part of the complainant suggest that the petitioner is entitled to the relief claimed..
Mr. Ainuddin Khan, learned counsel for NAB has contended that the petitioner could not count for excess amount utilized and acquiring immovable properties and the explanation furnished by him is not sustainable in law. The petitioner joined the services in PBS-V, as a clerk in the year 1977 and had acquired properties generated from the funds acquired through corruption and corrupt practices and had also moved for voluntary return of the benefits through application dated 10-10- 2005 to the respondent, which was declined by competent forum. It is, nexf urged, that the cost of the price bond amounting to Rs,40 lacs on different occasions does not connote establish that the petitioner's income commensurate with his known source of income. Leading to the inference that assets and properties owned in the name of the petitioner and in the names of his dependents are not in conflict: We have heard Mr. Aamir Raza Naqvi, learned counsel, for the petitioner and Mr, Ainuddin Khan, ADPG for NAB at length.
We have gone through the documents appended with the petitioner. It is primarily contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the Government has fixed the rate of Government land lying in barrage area of Hyderabad from Rs,12,000 per acre while report of the concerned Mukhtiarkar shows that the property was in vogue was purchased at Rs,25,000 to Rs,30,000 per acre. It is urged that NAB authorities were required to take into consideration the marked price at the time of the purchase of the property while they have assessed the properties at present price.
In case of Abdul Aziz Khan Niazi v. The State PLD 2003 SC 668 per elucidated for grant or refusal of bail in constitutional jurisdiction enjoyed by High Court is entirely discretionary but there can be no deviation from the rule that discretion should not be exercised in violation and recognized principles of justice and if it is exercised only on the basis of presumption inference suspicion bare allegation it would defeat the very purpose of the discretion.
It is further held that law does not permit to tender the people in jail only on the basis of presumption and suspicion of criminal acts, it is duty of the Court to administer the justice, prevent an abuse of law and protect the liberty of people. It is further held that bail cannot be claimed as a matter of right but there can also be departure from the rule that bail in non-bailable offences should not be withheld as punishment.
In case of Ch. Tanveer Khan v. Chairman, National Accountability Bureau PLD 2002 SC 572, the dictum laid down is from practice and procedure, prosecution in order to make out a case for refusal or to a case is primarily placed on record material on basis of which the people to be involved in a non-bailable offence but in absence of such material the Court for purpose of realizing the case on bail instead of dilating upon the facts of the case details can dispose of the matter by holding that his detention is unjustified unreasonable under such time when no such order either by investigating agencies the court ceased of the matter, some additional incriminating material is collected against him to justify rejection of his bail.
Turning to the merits of the case, the allegations against the petitioner are possessing the property having acquired the same from the actual owners at low thereby earned huge profits for disposing of the same. On tentative silting of evidence collected by the prosecution it transpires that the petitioner has earned Rs,2,74,500 in the year 2000, Rs,9,00,000 in the year 2001, Rs,9,00,000 in the year 2002 Rs,18,00,000 in the year 2003 and Rs,9,00,000 in the year 2004 towards the prize bonds owned by himself as well as his wife amounting to Rs,47,74,500 which cause shadow on the petitioner's known source of income on prima facie that assets and property acquired by him are disproportionate to the known source of income of the petitioner therefore, no case is made out warranting grant of bail in his favour. Accordingly petition is hereby dismissed. Interim pre arrest bail order hereby stands recalled.
Mr. Aamir Raza Naqvi, learned counsel for the petitioner has requested that the petitioner may be allowed to remain on bail for three weeks from today enabling him to approach the Hon'ble Supreme Court, accordingly he may be taken into custody after expiry of the time granted viz. 7-3- 2008 unless otherwise ordered by Hon'ble Supreme Court.