1. SYED MAHMOOD ALAM RIZVI, J.--- The petitioner has sought bail after arrest in a case pending before the Accountability Court Sindh, Karachi bearing Reference No. 52/2007 for the offence of Corruption and Corrupt Practices as denied in Section 9(a) and punishable under Section 10 of National Accountability Bureau Ordinance, 1999.
2. It is the prosecution case that the petitioner was appointed as Assistant Collector, Customs Department through Civil Service in 1984, and thereafter, resigned in 2004 at Deputy Collector.
3. During the above tenure of service of the petitioner received an amount of Rs. 18,60,244/- on account of salary and allowances. It is, alleged, that the petitioner made investments in the form of saving certificates in the name of his wife Mst. Qamar Sultana to the extent of Rs. 45,26,191/- disproportionate to his known sources of income which he cannot reasonable account for, the petitioner further derived benefit of Rs. 37,64,928/- on account of profit on the said investments. The petitioner thereby acquired assets pecuniary source of an aggregate value of Rs. 82,91,119/-.
4. During the custody, the petitioner offered to enter into plea bargaining in a sum of Rs. 20,00,000/- but the same was turned down.
5. After the investigation the reference was filed before the Accountability Court in August, 2007, and on 3-11-2007 the petitioner was arrested and remanded to judicial custody.
6. We have heard Mr. Aamir Raza Naqvi, learned counsel for petitioner and Mr. Shafat Nabi Sherwani, DPFA for NAB.
7. Learned Advocate for the petitioner has stated that the family dispute has been converted into a reference, as admittedly all the alleged investment was curing the years 1995 to 1999 and nothing were in the name of the petitioner, but actually assets were in the name of ex-wife of the petitioner, to whom petitioner had divorced in the year 2000 and she has not been made as accused thereby petitioner has been discriminated, no case is made out against the petitioner. The petitioner was never been involved in corruption or corrupt practices during his entire service.
8. Learned counsel for the petitioner further contends that ex-wife of the petitioner was also working lady in her statement recorded by investigating officer stated to have earned money through a private beauty parlour. So far as Rs. 2 Million are concerned, the said amount had been transferred from the account of the mother of the petitioner, which was saved from his father income retired in the year 1992 as Assistant Director in Ministry of Information. The ex-wife of the petitioner had paid tax under the Income Tax Amnesty Scheme. That no cut of date is mentioned in the reference which is necessary requirement for reference under Section 9(a)(v) of the NAB, Ordinance 3, 1999, the petitioner has settled abroad, returned to Pakistan when he came to know about the reference which shows his bona fides. Reliance has been placed on the following reported cases (1) SBLR 2007 Sindh 755 rel. page 765 (Hakim Ali Zardari v. NAB), (2) PLD 2002 Peshawar 118 (Muhammad Hayat v. The State) (3) PLD 2002 SC 572 (Ch. Tanveer Khan v. Chairman NAB).
9. Conversely, the learned DPG has stated that petitioner had made investments in the name of his ex-wife, and she had failed to show her own source of income. He admitted that Mst. Qamar Sultana has not been made as accused being a lady, it is admitted that the above investments never been transferred in the account of the petitioner.
10. We have given due consideration to the arguments advanced, gone through the material available on the record and found that the petitioner had full knowledge of the above investments.
11. But it is admitted fact that besides the above investments the prosecution has failed to ascertain other moveable or immoveable properties of the petitioner. It is, also a fact that the petitioner never transferred investment, which is his ex-wife retained all the investments in order to prove that she has earned the same.
12. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of the, case, we admit the petitioner on bail subject to deposit of Rs. 45,26,191/- (Rupees Forty Five lacs and Twenty-six thousand one hundred ninety one only) the actual investments with the Manager, Habib Bank Limited, Court Road Branch (High Court), Karachi, the Manager would invest the same in some profitable scheme, the fate of the above amount with profit would be decided by the learned Trial Court after the trial. The petitioner will also furnish separate surety in the sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- (One lac only) in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Nazir of this Court.
13. Petition stands allowed in above terms.