1. ' ZAFAR AHMED KHAN SHERWANI, J.--- Petitioner Shaikh Aijaz Ahmed has sought post-arrest bail in Reference No,37 of 2007 filed by the Chairman NAB under section 18(g) of the National Accountability Ordinance, 1999, for misappropriating the public funds, being holder of public office.
2. Succinctly the facts leading to the case are that the petitioner along with co-accused embezzled the public exchequer serving as counter clerk/payment clerk in the office of Bait-ul-Mal Funds, General Post Office Al-Haidery, Karachi, he was supposed to make payment to Mustahqeen after verification of the pass book. The petitioner was also required to check the payment vouchers duly filed by Mustahqeen and present the same to Assistant Post Master for his signatures. It is alleged that the petitioner prepared fake vouchers received cash payment from treasury himself for distribution to Mustahqeen made bulk payments against the charter of his duties thereby misappropriated the national exchequer committed the offence of corruption and corrupt practices as defined in Ordinance, 1999. Subsequent upon the holding of inquiry regarding the amount deposited in Bait-ul-Mal for disbursement to poor and deserving persons, was misappropriated. The petitioner was arrested on 24-4-2007, reference was submitted on 14-7- 2008.
3. ' Learned counsel for petitioner has contended that co-accused have been admitted on bail in Constitutional Petitions Nos.D-1818 of 2007 and 971 of 2007, a substantial sum has been voluntarily returned towards the alleged misappropriated amount. The charge has been framed, during the span of one and half years the prosecution was unable to adduce evidence in support of the reference. It is further contended that on the principle of consistency the role attributed to the applicant is similar to that of the co-accused, the applicant is also entitled to the concession of bail. In support thereof reliance is placed on Tariq Javid Afridi v. The State PLD 2002 Lah.
4. 233.
5. ' Mr. Aslam Butt learned D.P.-G. NAB strongly opposed the bail application contended that the role attributed to the petitioner is altogether different as he was assigned major role in misappropriation of the amount available with the Government Department, for distribution amongst deserving and poor persons.
6. We have considered the arguments advanced at Bar. The petitioner in collusion with co-accused have committed the alleged offence prima facie the evidence on record suggest the implication of the petitioner and that of the co-accused involved in the reference admitted on bail, therefore, on the principle of consistency the petitioner is also required to be placed in the same positions.
7. Undoubtedly the role attributed to the petitioner is not subservient to that of the co-accused yet the question of non-performance of the duty by the co-accused purporting to their neglect in performance of the duty would be adjudicated at trial.
8. ' We are conscious of the fact that tentative assessment is permissible at the bail stage. The investigation has been completed, trial has commenced but not a single witness has been examined in the span of one year and five months after the charge was framed. The object of the Ordinance, 1999 is limited to the expeditious disposal of the cases, inordinate delay has frustrated the object of the law. Learned D.P.-G. Appearing for NAB was unable to justify the situation as to why the prosecution was unable to conclude the case expeditiously as envisaged . Under the law.
9. ' For what has been discussed above, we hereby grant bail to the petitioner importing the doctrine of consistency, he is directed to be released on bail subject to furnishing solvent surety in the sum of Rs,2,00,000 (Rupees two hundred thousand only) and P.R. Bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Nazir of this Court.
10. ' Petition stands disposed of in above terms.