SYED MAHMOOD ALAM RIZVI, J.--- Petitioner Haji Allah Dino Zindpur,. Against whom a Reference has been filed before the Accountability Court, Karachi by the NAB, has moved this petition for grant of post-arrest bail.
2. Brief facts of the case are that a Reference bearing No. 19/2007 has been filed on 9-3-2007 before the Accountability Court against 14 accused persons including the petitioner who are/were public servants and were posed in the Revenue Department, Government of Sindh during the years 1994 to 2004 and who indulged in acts of corruption, corrupt practices and misuse of authority, in connivance with each other, and gained benefit of themselves and wilfully filed to exercise their authority to prevent the grant of undue benefit which they could had prevented by exercising their authority. The accused persons further, by preparing forged documents fraudulently and dishonestly misappropriated Government lands and obtained for themselves pecuniary advantage by corrupt- means. Accused have thereby committed the offences of corruption and corrupt practices as defined in clauses (iii), (iv), (vi) and (xii) of Section 10(a) of the National Accountability Bureau Ordinance, 1999 (herein after referred to as the 'Ordinance').
3. The specific allegations against the petitioner, as referred to inpara 5 of the reference, is as under:- "5. That Jessa Ram s/o Bankidas Dharwai (accused No. 5) with the connivance of Allah Dina Sindpuri s/o Rasool Bux (accused No. 7) on the basis of Moroosi Rights illegally and fraudulently allotted another Government land measuring 22,500 squares feet in the name of Muhammad Ismail s/o Allah Dino (accused No. 8) a private person vide entry No. 296, dated 19th April, 1995 during ban period and by using the fake reference of Takari Registered (Registered of Disputed cases), Later on, the said entry was cancelled by the then Assistant Commissioner of Talika Mirpur Sakrao on 5th January, 1998 in the light of Cancellation Order No. GAS/Revenue/908, dated 10th November, 1997 issued by the then Deputy Commissioner, Thatta.......
4. It is the case of the prosecution that the above cancelled land subsequently illegally transferred by the other co-accused namely Abdul Rauf Sheikh with connivance of Muhammad Zaur in the name of Amanullah vide entry No. 47, dated 2-4-1999, caused a loss to the Government exchequer to the tune of Rs. 1.00 million.
5. We have heard the advocate for the petitioner and ADPGA for NAB and perused the record of the case very carefully.
6. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has been falsely implicated and no proof against him regarding involvement in the above crime is available as on the relevant dated i.e. 19-4-1995 he was posted at Jatti and not at Mirpur Sakrao. That no a single witness has made any allegation against him in their statements under Section 161, Cr.P.C., that the NAB authorities never called him for investigation and that he has already retired from service in the year 2000. He further contended that the alleged signatures of the petitioner mentioned in the impugned entry on Form-II were never sent to a handwriting expert and the said signature are bogus. And that not even a single witness stated that the petitioner was posted at the said place at the relevant time and that he was the only person in custody for the last couple of months, while the rest of the 13 co-accused were hever arrested by the NAB .Authorities for mala fide reasons and among them some are on interim bail before arrest granted by this Court. He further contended that as per annexure 1/B filed by the advocate for NAB, with documents against the petitioner, consisting of 113 pages, his posting was shown at Marho Bulla Khan, Taluka Jatti from 1-1-1991 to 30- 6-1995, which also substantiate his arguments.
7. On the other hand, Mr. Ainuddin Khan, ADPGA NAB contended that actually it is a typographical error mentioning in para 5 of the Reference- and inadvertently instead of "19-11-1995" the date has been mentioned as 19- 11-1995" and "11" be reads as "4" and at the particular time in November, 1995 as per Annexure 1/B the petitioner was posted at Gharo, Taluka Mirpur Sakro between 8-9-1995 to 23-3-1996 and on the impugned Form-II, the specific signature of the petitioner is available and he is the first person who has made the entry regarding the illegal transfer besides the signature of the co-accused Jessa Ram and hence both had connived with each other regarding fraudulent allotment of the Government lands measuring 22500 sq. Yds., in the name of Muhammad Ismail. He further contended that on the same Form dated 10-11-1997, the Deputy Commissioner, Thatta was pleased to cancel the said allotment. He further contended that the NAB authorities, during the investigation/inquiry sent at least two letters to petitioner on 24-6-2005 and 28-11-2005; but the petitioner never tuned up to join the inquiry. He contended that this is a white-collar crime and prima facie the petitioner is involved in the reference and hence not entitled for bail.
8. After perusal of the record it appears that in para 5 of the reference the date of entry is "19-4- 1995" and as per Annexure 1/B filed by the advocate for the NAB it clearly shows that on that date the petitioner was posted at "Jatti" and not at "Mirpur Sakro". It is; also an admitted position that the available signatures of the petitioner and the signature found on Form II, the impugned document, were not sent to the handwriting expert to ascertain the truth. It is, also an admitted position that the said land was duly cancelled vide order dated 10-11-1997 by the Deputy Commissioner and the entry was also made on Form-II and the said Deputy Commissioner cancelled all the entries of "Morosi Plots" and their subsequent sale/transaction, if any, in village and Taluka, in all the Form-II were treated as cancelled, and the Assistant Commissioner was directed to prepare a list of such cancellation entries and he was further directed to prepare a name-wise list of such entries showing the name of Mukhtiar kar and the number of village staff involved in the issue for the purpose of taking suitable necessary action against them, but no such list is produced before the Court.
9. On query, the advocate for the NAB failed to cite a single witness who has deposed that on the relevant dated the petitioner was posed at Mirpur Sakro. The petitioner retired in the year 2000 and is an old man, and the land is still in possession of the Government.
10. After considering the material on record, we are of the considered view that the case requires further inquiry, as such, the petitioner is entitled to concession of bail. The bail is granted to the petitioner in the sum of Rs. 0.5 million with P.R. Bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of. Nazir of this Court. The petition is allowed. .