1. ' Petitioners seek pre-arrest bail in Reference No,70 of 2007 filed by Chairman NAB under section 9(a) of National Accountability Ordinance, 1999. They were admitted on interim pre-arrest bail vide orders, dated 5-11-2007 and 17-12-2007, respectively, which has now come up for confirmation or otherwise.
2. ' The facts giving rise to the petitions are that a case of fraudulent transfer of land against Khalil Ullah Jan Sarhandi in connivance with Government officials of Revenue Department was reported to the National Accountability Bureau which was thrashed and revealed that the petitioners Sikandar Ali Memon, Ali Nawaz Bhatti, Nazeer Ahmed Rind, Zahid Hussain Rajpar, Thaku Mal, Khalil Ullah Jan Sarhandi and Hafeez Jan Sarhandi were prima facie involved in corruption and corrupt practices. As per investigation report, Messrs Sugar Land Private Limited, registered with Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan through its Chief Executive Mrs. Sanober Akhtar wife of Rashidullah Yaqoob, purchased 207 Acres, 16 Ghuntas of agricultural land from Messrs Panther Farm Private Limited. Through a registered sale-deed, the name of the said owner was duly mutated in the record of Mukhtiarkar. It was further revealed that Messrs First Pak Modaraba informed the then Mukhtiarkar Land Revenue Nazeer Ahmed Rind through letter dated 1st August, 2002, to mark the lien in Revenue Record since the property was mortgaged with Messrs First Pak Modaraba. One Tahir Siddiqui, Chief Executive of Sanober Akhtar went to United States of America but did not return. On the recommendation of one of his friends he requested Rashid Ullah Yaqoob the husband of Sanober Akhtar for a job for Zahid Hussain Rajpar who was appointed as Manager to look after Messrs Sugar Land Private Limited at Tando Muhammad Khan during the year 1997.
3. The investigation report reveals that Zahid Hussain Rajpar and Thaku Mal connived for the sale of the said land located near the village of Khalilullah Jan Sarhandi and deceitfully negotiated for the sale of the land at the rate of Rs,22,000 per Acre. Payments were made through cheques. On 17th April, 2006, Thaku Mal applied to Nazeer Ahmed Rind Mukhtiarkar for issuance of sale certificate of the land of Messrs Sugar Land Private Limited without ascertaining the bona fides of the applicant.
4. The sale certificate was verified and issued by Nazeer Ahmed Rind despite restraining order of National Accountability Bureau communicated on 6th April, 2002. Being confirmed by the office of Mukhtiarkar thereby, the subject land was transferred in the name of petitioner Khalilullah Jan Sarhandi despite the fact of the red ink prohibiting sale/transfer of land, was entered into the record of rights.
5. ' In para.12 of the reference following has been inserted:-- "The investigation reveals that on the basis of the evidence on record and the scrutiny of documents, it is prima facie established that the accused Nos.1 to 3 being holders of public office, unlawfully transferred 207 Acres, 16 Guntas land, which was mortgaged and lien marked in the Revenue Record. The accused Nos.4 and 5 through corrupt practice, obtained fictitious sale certificate and arranged the fraudulent sale of 207 Acres and 16 Guntas who become the beneficiary of 207 Acres and 16 Guntas land after payment of only Rs,0.5 million and some additional amount in dispute purportedly issued by way of negotiable instrument issued by accused No,7 towards total sale consideration of Rs,4.4 million. Whereas the property was mortgaged with financial institution against value of Rs,18 millions. The. Accused Nos.4 and 7 abetted in commission of offence. By committing fraudulent sale, purchase and transfer of land, the accused persons have committed an offence under section 9(a) of the National Accountability Ordinance, 1999 and schedule thereto, which is punishable under section 10 of the said Ordinance."
6. ' We have heard Messrs Shahab Sarki and Muhammad Ashraf Kazi, Advocates for petitioner and Mr. Asif Rashid, Advocate for NAB and perused the record.
7. ' Mr. Muhammad Ashraf Kazi learned counsel appearing for petitioners Sikandar Ali Memon and Nazeer Ahmed Rind has contended that the petitioners are not prima facie involved in commission of corruption and corrupt practices. From perusal of relevant correspondence it is revealed that one Thaku Mal general attorney of Mrs. Sanober Akhtar Chief Executive of Messrs Sugar Land Private Limited presented a sale certificate No,56, dated 24-4-2006 in respect of subject land before Sikandar Ali Memon who was serving as Sub-Registrar in Revenue Department. That sale certificate was issued by the then Mukhtiarkar after verification countersign of Tapedar and the co- accused Thaku Mal appeared before Sikandar Ali Memon holding general power of attorney and therefore, he has ordered for the compliance thereof and directed his office clerk Siddiq Memon to visit Karachi along with Manager Zahid Hussain Rajpar to verify the facts and who, after satisfaction, obtained the signatures of Mst. Sanober Akhtar Yaqoob on the said power of attorney on behalf of the petitioner. It is urged that at no stage did Mr. Siddiq Memon clerk disclose to the petitioner the parties' credibility or their misidentification. It is urged, that in order to ensure the valid transaction under section 31 of the Registration Act proviso attached thereto, regarding genuineness of documents and identity of executing parties Sikandar Ali Memon ordered his clerk to visit Karachi and to obtain the signatures on sale-deed after his satisfaction of the identity of Mst. Sanober Akhtar Yaqoob.
8. ' In connection with C.P. No,D-2422 of 2007, Mr. Muhammad Ashraf Kazi learned counsel appearing for petitioner Nazeer Ahmed Rind has categorically pointed out that the sale certificate was issued by petitioner only upon verification. It is next urged that in the record we have got entry in the name of Messrs Sugar Land Private Limited, and that no note pertaining to lien or charge created was available on the record of rights and since there was no impediment, therefore, sale certificate was issued to the owner of the land through her constituted attorney.
9. ' Mr. Shahab Sarki learned counsel appearing for petitioners Khalil Ullah Jan Sarhandi and Hafizullah Jan Sarhandi contended that they are the bona fide purchasers of the subject land for valuable consideration which was paid through post-dated cheques subject to clearance of all objections. It is urged that through publication in newspaper the petitioners came to know about the fraud played by illegal selling of the land of Messrs Sugar Land Private Limited. They immediately contacted the attorney who informed them that it was a fake news. It is urged that E.D.O. Revenue, Tando Muhammad Khan, had cancelled the Entry No,105 on 6-6-2006 as being invalid, upon which the petitioners have preferred appeal before the Member, Judicial, Board of Revenue, Sindh, Hyderabad. The petitioner had lodged F.I.R. No,163 of 2006 against the attorney Thaku Mal who has also proceeded to file F.I.R. Against the dishonoured cheques presented to him by the petitioners. Therefore, all reasonable care and prudence was utilized for acquiring the land by the petitioners.
10. ' Conversely learned counsel for the respondent NAB has refuted the allegations but he was not in a position to rebut the statement of P.W. Qamaruddin Memon recorded under section 161, Cr.P.C.
11. We have considefed the arguments advanced at bar, and perused the record of the case. We are conscious of the fact that deep scrutiny of the allegations raised by the learned counsel for the parties is not permissible in law, yet the petitioners Khalilullah Jan Sarhandi and Hafizullah Jan Sarhandi claim to be bona fide purchasers of the subject A land and upon its cancellation resorted to have filed appeal before the Board of Revenue. It is quite clear and evident from the allegations contained in the reference that petitioners did not acquire any financial gain for themselves. One of the petitioners had verified his deed under section 42 of the Land Revenue Act. In this context reliance is placed on the dictum laid down in case of Choudhry Shujat Hussain v. The State 1995 SCM R 1249, Hisamuddin v. The State Bail Application No,181 of 1999 (unreported case) and Saeed Ahmed v. The State 1994 SCMR 170. Now, if the case of the prosecution is kept in juxtaposition to the case of the petitioners, it would require further inquiry into their guilt or innocence. On tentative assessm ent of the evidence we are of the view that in order to avoid unnecessary humiliation and harassm ent they are entitled to the concession of pre-arrest bail. In view of the above circumstances, interim pre-arrest bail referred (supra) granted to the petitioners, is hereby confirmed on the same terms and conditions.