1. ' MUHAMMAD TASNIM, J.--- The applicant is facing trial before the Court of Special Judge (Central- II), Karachi in Crime No,1 of 2010, registered at Police Station F.I.A., Crime Circle, Karachi, under sections 406, 409, 420, 468, 471, 477A and 109/34, P.P.C. Read with section 5(2), Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947.
2. ' The brief facts as set out in the F.I.R. Are that consequent upon Enquiry No,95 of 2009 of F.I.A., Crime Circle, Karachi, It has been established that Pakistan Steel has awarded canteen contract of its nineteen (19) canteens for the year, 2007-2008 with a total subsidy of Rs,3,57,67,900 to various contractors. The bill of quantity was estimated for 7080 employees. While estimating the similar award for the year, 2008-2009 it was estimated at Rs,4,62,59,827 with an increase of 30% owing to the price hike in the commodities. The tender was floated for the estimated cost of Rs,4,62,49,827 but, in the meantime, CBA entered into the matter and, thereafter, a meeting was held on 12-9- 2008 wherein the tender cost of Rs,4,62,49,827 was increased to Rs,12,72,91,007 and the tender already floated were scraped and new tender for Rs,12,72,91,007 was floated causing loss to Pakistan Steel to Rs,8,10,41,180. On the afore-said charge F.I.R. No,1 of 2010 was registered as afore- said. Interim Challan has been submitted before the learned trial Court. The present applicant/accused filed bail application before the learned trial Judge who after hearing the parties rejected the same vide his order dated 3-3-2010 and against the afore-said order present bail application has been made.
3. ' I have heard Ms. Masooda Qureshi, learned counsel for the applicant/accused, and Mr. Shahab Sarki, learned Standing Counsel for the State, and have gone through the record available before me.
4. ' Learned counsel for the applicant/accused submitted that although the name of the applicant appears in the F.I.R. But no role has been assigned to him. She further submits that interim Challan has been submitted by the prosecution but even in the said interim Challan no role has been assigned to the present applicant. The learned counsel also submits that the appellant/accused was neither member of the Technical Evaluation Committee nor of the Commercial Committee and was not connected with the increase of amount of tender which is subject-matter of the present F.I.R. She submits that the applicant/accused served as DGM (IR) upto 18-9-2008 and thereafter he was transferred to some other department and new DGM took charge of the IR Department. She also stated that the applicant/accused has been falsely implicated in the present case though he has participated in the facts-finding inquiry held by the Management of Pakistan Steel as a witness. Lastly, the learned counsel submitted that co-accused Muhammad Farooq has already been granted bail by this Court vide order dated 18th March, 2010, passed in Criminal Bail Application No,135 of 2010, hence, applying the rule of consistency, the present applicant/accused may also be admitted.
5. ' In support of her submission, the learned counsel for the applicant/accused relied on the following reported judgments:--
(1) Saeed Ahmed v. The State 1995 SCMR 1970, (2) Muhammad Afzal alias Bodi v. The State 1979 SCM R 9, (3) Abdul Salam v. The State 1980 SCM R 142, (4) Shahzad v. The State 1996 PCr.LJ 978, (5)
6. Muhammad Aslam and another v. The State 1996 M LD 1870, (6) Haji Wali Muhammad v. The State 1996 SCMR 233, (7) Mian Abdul Manan v. The State 2005 PCr.LJ 89, (8) Abdul Rashid v. The State 1996 PCr.LJ 1558, (9) Muhammad Arif Naveed v. The State 2007 YLR 2987, (10) Raza Muhammad Bhutto and another v. The State 2007 PCr.LJ 1979, (11) Muhammad Imran Khalid v. The State 2005 PCr.LJ 1069, (12) Riaz Ahmad v. The State 2007 M LD 407, (13) Tariq Bashir and others v. The State PLD 1995 SC 34 and (14) Sabir Hussain v. State 1999 PCr.LJ 958.
7. ' On the other hand, Mr. Shahab Sarki, learned Standing counsel for the State, opposed the grant of bail to the applicant/accused on merits and submitted that it is a fact that the applicant/accused was transferred from the office of DGM, IR, on 18-9-2008 but the entire transaction had taken place prior to such date hence the present applicant/accused Is connected with the offence. He has invited my attention to page 213 of the file, which is a preliminary inquiry report in connection with awarding of contract for the 19 canteens of Pakistan Steel for the years, 2008-2009. Learned Standing Counsel has also invited my attention to page 299 of said report and a perusal whereof shows that tender was floated on the basis of last year's BOQ. Menu and total cost of contract of Rs,4,62,49,827 and the dates of opening of tender were 16th, 17th and 18th September, 2008. But prior to such dates of opening of the tenders a meeting was held on 12th September, 2008, in which the present applicant/accused fully participated and after the meeting the price of contract was increased from Rs,4,62,49,827 to Rs,12,72,91,007, and the tender already floated were scraped and new opening date of the tenders was fixed as 23-9-2008 as per revised menu.
8. From the above it is clear that, no doubt, the present applicant/accused stood transferred on 18-9- 2009 but the date on which the rates of tender were enhanced and the menu was revised i,e, meeting dated 12-9-2008, he was very much there and participated in the said meeting in his capacity as DGM, IR. In meeting dated 12-9-2009 the terms of the contract were revised and the amount was enhanced from Rs,4,62,49,827 to Rs,12,72,91,007, therefore it appears that the present applicant/accused prima facie is connected with the charge. The case-law cited before me by the learned counsel for the applicant/accused is not relevant as they are distinguishable from the facts of present case. With regard to grant of bail on the rule of consistency that does not apply in the present case as the applicant/accused in the present case is not similarly placed to that of co- accused Muhammad Farooq who was granted bail in Bail Application No,135 of 2010. The name of co-accused Muhammad Farooq did not appear in the F.I.R. But his name was included on the basis of statements under section 161, Cr.P.C. Made by two employees of Pakistan Steel. The present applicant/accused participated in the meeting dated 12-9-2008 whereas co-accused Muhammad Farooq had not taken any part in any meeting with regard to floating of tender.
9. ' In view of the above, I find no merits in this bail application and, accordingly, dismiss the same.
10. However, it may be clarified that the observations made hereinabove are tentative in nature and the learned trial Court, while deciding the case on merits, shall not be prejudiced by the same. .