' PARVEZ AHMAD, J.---Mst. Kausar Nawaz, the petitioner, through the present Constitutional petiton has prayed for 'declaring the .Arrest of her husband Muhammad Nawaz being illegal, without lawful authority and has prayed for release of her husband.
2. The, facts giving rise to the present writ petition are that the alleged detenu Muhammad Nawaz, the husband of the petitioner, was arrested ,for committing an offence of corruption and corrupt practices with the allegation that Ijaz Ahmad Awan and late Zulfiqar Ahmad Awan, the real brother of Muhammad Nawaz, had opened an account No,429 in the year 1991 in the name of Muhammad Nawaz without sanction/approval of the Board of Directors of defunct SCCCL as well as without any initial deposit and subsequently had got withdrawn Rs,13,00,000 in February, 1991 and subsequently illegally got written off this amount.
3. Consequent upon the issuance of notice Mr. Asad Manzoor Butt, Advocate/Prosecutor has entered appearance on behalf of respondent No,1 and submitted parawise comments, which have been perused. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the material made available before this Court.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner at the outset has submitted that as a regular reference has been filed against Muhammad B Nawaz, the alleged detenu, as such he presses this petition only to the extent of relief of bail. In this behalf, he has placed reliance on the case of Begum Riffat Ahad v. NAB through Chairman and 4 others 2003 PCr.LJ 87. On the other hand, learned counsel for the NAB while controverting the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that as a regular reference has been filed, therefore, this petition has become infructuous and Muhammad Nawaz accused can file separate petition for bail.
5. Admittedly at the time of filing of this writ petition no reference was pending -against Muhammad Nawaz and that is why the petitioner has not prayed for release of c Muhammad Nawaz on bail and as during the pendency of this writ petition a reference has been filed by respondent No,1 against Muhammad Nawaz, therefore, the request of the learned counsel for the petitioner seems to be genuine. In this behalf we are fortified by the view laid down by our learned brothers in the case of Begum Riffat Ahmad (Supra). Even C otherwise this Court has ample powers under Article 199 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 to pass any orders to meet the ends of justice, therefore, we convert this petition into bail petition.
6. As regard merits of the case are concerned, the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that Muhammad Nawaz had opened A/c No,429 after necessary formalities and A/c No,497 has no nexus with it while on the other hand learned counsel for the NAB has submitted that both the accounts were operated by the accused and the accused had illegally withdrawn the amounts, as such he was guilty of corruption and corrupt practice under the NAB Ordinance. Any finding on the submissions of both the learned counsel will prejudice the case of either of the parties, therefore, we are not inclined to discuss the merits of the case. However, in view of the controversial submissions of the learned counsel for the parties coupled with tentative assessment of the record, the petitioner has succeeded to make out a case for concession of bail to Muhammad Nawaz.
7. In view of the above discussion, this writ petition is allowed and Muhammad Nawaz is admitted to bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs,25,00,000 (Rupees twenty lacs only) with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court.