1. ' Learned counsel submits that the petitioner has been involved in the Reference No,47 of 2003, on presumption only as he was not named in the initial report on the basis of which F.I.R. No,14 of 1997 was lodged nor in the said F.I.R. He was assigned any role and even his name does not find any mention in the interim challan but surprisingly after about two years supplementary report was submitted in the NAB bearing No,27 of 2003 and the petitioner was involved in that. He submits that the role, as assigned to the petitioner, is, that he with connivance with Saddaruddin Ganji, Hashim Ganji and Saleem Dawood as well as M.B. Abbasi embezzled the imported/bounded R.B.D. Oil weighing 8.800 metric tones. He further submits that the petitioner was Muqadam only and although he was submitting report in respect of the available quantity of oil in the banks but that was in the knowledge of the Bank as entire process of clearance of the oil through the customs was to be performed by the clearing and forwarding agent of the Bank through specific original papers which were in the custody of the Bank or its forwarding agent. He submits that the removal of the oil from the bounded tank was not possible until there was a clearance from the Bank in respect to the clearance of goods and payment of duty on the basis of which gate pass was being issued but instead of going through that aspect and conducting a full-fledge inquiry by keeping in view the role of the Bank officials, the Bank has involved the petitioner and other persons just to save their own skin. He further submits that the Bank has also filed a suit for recovery of alleged amount against Saddaruddin while in this case, although Saddaruddin is shown as main accused, has been enlarged on bail while M.B. Abbasi Chief Executive of the N.D.F.C. (which has been merged into National Bank of Pakistan) has been released under N.R.O.
2. ' Mr. Chaudhry Iqbal learned counsel for the NAB has pointed out page No,7 of the reference where the role has been assigned to the petitioner according to which he acted in connivance of the other accused and was responsible for removal of the R.B.D oil.
3. ' After hearing the learned counsel, it is observed that the petitioner has earlier filed a Constitution Petition bearing No,2030 of 2007, same was disposed with direction that two relevant witnesses Manzoorul Haq and Zahid Ilyas Abbasi be examined and their statements are available at pages 83 and 87 of the file. Through that very order the petitioner was allowed to repeat the petition for bail and this petition has been filed. We have observed from the deposition of above witnesses that their statements to be scrutinized by the trial Court to put a certainty of the liability upon the petitioner while the trial Court has also to see as to whether the procedure as pointed out above by the learned counsej has been followed or not and in such a situation what would be liability of the petitioner. It has been observed that two other accused have been enlarged through bait or under NRO, therefore, we find that the case of the petitioner is also of further inquiry and the petitioner is admitted to bail subject to his furnishing surety in the sum of Rs.10,00,000 (Rupees ten lacs only) and P.R. Bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Nazir of this Court.