' SYED MAHMOOD ALAM RIZVI, J.---Petitioner Noor Ali Shah facing trial before the Accountability Court, Karachi in Reference No,69 of 2007 has moved this petition for grant of post-arrest bail.
2. Briefly, facts of the case are that the above reference has been filed on 3-10-2007 against 69 accused persons including the petitioner who was a public servant and was retired from the post of Headmaster, Government High School, Jahan Khan, District Shikarpur on 15-9-2005. He indulged in acts of corruption, corrupt practices and misuse of authority, in connivance with other accused, therefore, committed the offences of corrupt practices as defined in clauses (iii), (iv), (vi) and (xii) of section 9(a) punishable under section 10(a) of the National Accountability Bureau Ordinance, 1999 (hereinafter referred to as the "Ordinance").
3. The specific allegations against the petitioner, as referred to in para.11 of the reference, is as under:-- "(11) The accused No,9 as Headmaster, Government High School Panhwar and Government High School Jahan Khan was holding two officials Bank accounts in National Bank of Pakistan Hathi Dar Branch and Naudero Branch Shikarpur. Accused No,9 in connivance with officials of DAO Shikarpur embezzled Rs,95,42,685 from GPF by managing bogus GPF bills of eighteen ghost/fake employees of Government High School Panhwar and Government High School Jehan Khan. The GPF bills were signed/ forwarded by accused No,9 to DAO Shikarpur. The amount of GPF after the payment order of DAO/ADAO was remitted in the official Bank accounts and the amount was finally withdrawn in cash through cheques issued under signature of accused No,9."
4. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has been falsely implicated, and no evidence is available against him regarding involvement or abetment in the above crime. That the signatures of the petitioner on the alleged bills requires verification, hence it is a case of further inquiry. That the evidence is of documentary nature and there is no possibility of tampering with the evidence by the petitioner. That the petitioner is an old-aged respectable retired officer and no apprehension of his absconsion.
5. On the other hand, Mr. Ainuddin Khan, A.D.G.P., NAB contended that sufficient evidence is available against the petitioner to connect him with the case and since the reference has already been filed, hence no need of further investigation is required.
6. Mr. Ainuddin Khan referred the statement under section 161, Cr.P.C. Of Deewandas Nag Pal, the Headmaster of Government High School, Jahan Khan, who has stated that the G.P. Fund, withdrawn through Account No,1047-5 and 3710-0 of National Bank of Pakistan and Muslim Commercial Bank respectively, do not belong to their school. He further stated that neither beneficiaries to whom G.P.
Fund was paid, belongs to their school nor the Bank transaction of G.P. Fund was in his knowledge being the DDO of same school. According to him, the referred G.P. Fund cases are fake and forged and all these were withdrawn by accused Headmaster Noor Ali Shah.
7. Mr. Ainuddin further referred the statement of P.W. Ghulam Mustafa Solangi, the Junior School Teacher, Government High School, Panhwar, he stated that G.P. Fund amounting to Rs .3,98,950 was sanctioned in his name and deposited in the official account of DDO/Headmaster Syed Noor Ali Shah on 29-8-2002, the accused signed the cheque for Rs .3,98,000 and withdrawn the amount from National Bank of Pakistan. Naudero Branch on 4-9-2002. He further stated that neither he claimed the G.P. Fund nor had ever withdrawn the said amount of G.P. Fund and further, his signatures on the cheque are fake. He further referred the statement of P.W. Rafiq Ahmed, who was High School Teacher, of Government High Court, Panhwar in 2002-2003. It is alleged that men of accused had given threats to kill him in case he would not obey the orders of the accused of encashment of different cheques, which were not entered in the Cash Book in the years 2002 and 2003 amounting to lacs of rupees. Mr. Ainuddin Khan referred the documentary evidence/ Bank documents/certificates against the accused/petitioner and contended that the accused is not entitled to the concession of bail. He relied upon the judgments reported as Afzaal Ahmed v. State 2003 SCM R 573, Muhammad Siddique v. Imtiaz Begum 2002 SCM R 442, Abdul Waheed v. State 2004 SCM R 319, Mehrban Ali v. State 2004 SCM R 229 and Imtiaz Ahmed v. State PLD 1997 SC 545.
8. We have heard all the lawyers, learned A.D.P.G. And perused the record and the statements of prosecution witnesses.
9. The Advocate for the petitioner has contended that no evidence is available against the accused/petitioner, but the statements of the witnesses and the documentary evidence, prima facie, connect the accused/petitioner in the above crime.
10. In the case of Maqsoom Hussain Shah v. State 2007 PCr.LJ 171 it has been held as under:-- ' "Bail, refusal of---Accused along with his co-accused, who was his close relative, had deprived complainant from Rs,6,00,000 by showing him a plot which was not owned and possessed by his co-accused and by so doing had committed fraud on complainant---Offences for which accused was being charged though did not fall under prohibition clause of section 497, Cr.P.C., but as accused had deprived an innocent person from his life long earning he did not deserve any discretionary relief--- Challan had been submitted in the Court against accused---Trial Court, however, was directed to conclude the trial expeditiously."
11. In the case of Sher Dil Khoso v. State 2000 PCr.LJ 1748 it has been held as under:-- "Bail, grant of---Huge amount was drawn by unknown persons through forged cheque from the Bank---Certain offences alleged against accused were not bailable---Accused, prima facie, appeared to be involved in said offences as Bank Officers, who were well-skilled in marking differences between forged signatures and original one overlooked the forged signatures---F.I.R.
Though was registered after lapse of more than eight months, but ground of delay in recording of F.I.R. Was not always to be resolved against prosecution for the purpose of bail---Circumstances having clearly made out a prima facie case against accused, bail could not be allowed."
12. In the case of Mehrban All v. State 2004 SCM R 229 it has been held as under:-- ' "Sections 420/467/468/471---Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Article 185(3)---Bail---Serious allegations of fraud, forgery and extortion had been levelled against the accused which were not without substance---Complainant had been allegedly deprived from immovable property worth lacs of rupees on the basis of forgery and fake documents allegedly prepared by the accused--- Power of attorney executed by the complainant in favour of accused had been withdrawn for certain obvious reasons---Prima facie, a case against the accused had been made out--- Impugned order passed by High Court cancelling the bail granted to accused by the Sessions Court did not call for any interference---Leave to appeal was refused to accused in circumstances and bail was declined to him accordingly."
13. This is a white-collar crime and in the above circumstances, the petitioner is, prima facie, involved in the above case, hence he is not entitled to be enlarged on bail. We, therefore, reject the above application for bail.
14. Reference has been filed, therefore, we direct the trial Court to record the evidence of material witnesses within three months, and if, according to the petitioner, any case is made out in his favour he is at liberty to move a fresh bail application.
15. Above are the reasons of the short order dated 21-4-2008 by which we had dismissed the petition.