1. ' This petition has been preferred by the petitioner seeking pre-arrest bail in NAB Reference No,43 of 2007 filed by the State.
2. Succinctly, facts leading to the reference are that the petitioner after completing M.SC (Chemistry) in the year, 1976, joined as Lecturer in Government National Science College, Karachi served till 1984.
3. During the year, 1984, he joined Custom Department Government of Pakistan as Appraiser in BPS-14 and was promoted to post of Principal Appraiser in BPS-16 in 2004, being holder of the Public Office, has amassed wealth in his name and in the name of his family members, an investigation conducted by authorized Investigation Officer, it was concluded that petitioner had acquired assets disproportionate to his known legitimate source of income, as a result of detailed investigation under section .18(g) of the NAB Ordinance, 1999 Director General NAB filed reference in Accountability Court in paragraph No,6 of the reference following is enumerated:-- "6. That in view of the above facts and the evidence collected, it has been established that the above named accused has committed the acts of corruption and corrupt practice as defined under section 9(a) of National Accountability Ordinance, 1999 punishable under section 10 of the said Ordinance."
4. ' We have heard Mr. M. Ashraf Kazi, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Ainuddin Khan, ADPG for NAB.
5. ' Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently urged that in the reference, assets alleged to have been accumulated in the years 1995-1996 and 1997-1998, investigation was initiated in the year, 2001, after six years of the incident there appears no justification on behalf of the NAB authorities to submit reference. It is next urged, that prima facie petitioner was able to put up a proper rebuttal to the allegations levelled in para 3 of the reference, therefore, matter requires further inquiry into guilt or innocence of the petitioner who is aged about 58 years at the sag of his retirement. It is, next urged, that there can be no cavil to the proposition that this Court may or may not interfere in a matter in its discretionary jurisdiction but refusal to interfere must not offend spirit of law and cause of justice as the object of exercise of discretionary jurisdiction is always to foster the justice, preserve the rights and protect the liberties as laid down in case of Abdul Aziz v. The State PLD 2003 SC 668.
6. ' Conversely, learned counsel for the respondent NAB has strongly opposed grant of bail rested upon the allegations contained in the reference filed by the NAB, tending to show that the petitioner being a Government servant had accumulated property beyond his known source of income.
7. ' We have given consideration to the arguments advanced, perused the material available on the record, Reference discloses that 60 tolas of gold was acquired by Mst. Shamim Akhtar wife of the petitioner in the year, 1984, 400 sq. Yard doubled storey house existed in the name of petitioner's mother Mst. Jamila Khatoon, acquired in the year, 1989, double storey house situated in sector 11, North Karachi, admeasuring 120 sq. Yards in the name of petitioner's brother Muhammad Umar was constructed out of the petitioner's income. In the year 1991-1992, petitioner is in use Mitsubishi Car Model Lancer model 1988 jointly in the name of Akhlaq Ahmed and HBL acquired in 1997 whereas House No,A-1035, Street 11-A, North, Karachi, admeasuring 240 square yards was acquired in the year, 1997. It may be noticed that the golden ornaments were disclosed by the petitioner in his declaration of assets after joining Customs Authorities, double storeyed house in sector 11-B, North Karachi in the name of petitioner's mother, whereas House No,35, Sector 11/A, North Karachi, in the name of his wife. Admittedly commercial plots in sector 11K, North Karachi, stood in the name of petitioner's brother Muhammad Umar, upon which alleged construction was raised incurring expenses of Rs,11,44,688 as per P.W.D. Assessment, from the perusal of the income after joining the Custom Department from the year, 1984 upto year, 1997 petitioner had earned salary amounting to Rs,30,99,688.
8. ' In any view of the matter as laid down in case of Muhammad Amin Farooqui v. The State reported in Cr.P.L.A. No,664 of 2006 the charges and allegations against the petitioner has expounded by the counsel for the NAB, it may be observed that the truth or otherwise of such allegations would only be determined at the conclusion of the trial by the Court being cease of the case after deeper analysis of the evidence.
9. Adverting to the allegations levelled against the petitioner would only be determined at the conclusion of the trial after deeper analysis of the evidence prima facie allegations itself would not constitute a bar for grant of bail in peculiar circumstances of the case.
10. ' From perusal of the sources of income shown by the petitioner there appear to be sufficient income to purchase the property in the name of his wife in the year, 1997, However, this factum requires evidence and deeper appreciation which cannot be undertaken at this stage because it might prejudice the case of the parties on tentative assessment of the material available on the record, we are of the considered view that the petitioner is entitled to concession of bail.
11. In the light what has been discussed above the interim bail already granted to the petitioner is confirmed on the same terms and conditions. These C are the reasons for the short order dated 15- 1-2008, whereby the petition was allowed. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.