1. TUFAIL H. EBRAHIM, J.---By this common order I shall dispose of two Criminal Bail Applications viz. No,986 of 2010 and No,1044 of 2010 filed on behalf of applicants/accused Nasir Abbas Soomro and Sharfuddin Shaikh respectively. Both the bail applications have arisen out of F.I.R. No,22 of 2010, registered on 20-9-2010 at 1820 hours, under sections 409/420/467/471/34, P.P.C. R/w section 5(2)
2. Act-II 1947 at Police Station ACE, Karachi by complainant Inspector D.B. Suhag.
3. Brief facts for disposal of above two criminal bail applications are as follows:-- "On 5-5-2003 a raid was conducted at the office of Mukhtiarkar Scheme-33. Karachi and DDO (Revenue). HQ under the supervision of Magistrate and relevant record was secured which revealed as under:--
(1) Land Survey No,63.112. Deh Songal admeasuring 39D-03 Acres was the property of Provincial Government vide No,34 dated 27-1-1999, out of which about 25-00 acres were fraudulently entered in the name of one Muhammad Ashraf vide Entry No .22 .
(2) Muhammad Ashraf on the basis of a true copy of Entry No,22 prepared on 15-1-2002 by Tapedar Sabir 'Ali Khushk and signed by Mukhtiarkar Rafique Quireshi, sold 4-00 acres land to Messrs Grid and produced sale-deed before Sub-Registrar T. Div-12 for Registration.
4. Mumtaz Ali Siyal, Sub-Registrar T-Div 12 executed the sale-deed and adjourned the same for want of NOC for Sale from DDO (Rev) and verification of documents/extract form VII and map/sketch.
(4) Mukhtiarkar Rafique Ahmed Qureshi called report from Tapedar Sabir Ali Khushk and issued NOC for sale which was countersigned by DDO (Rev) Nasir Abbas Soomro dated 14-3-2002. Sub- Registrar Mumtaz Ali Siyal proceeded on leave and another Sub-Registrar Khudadad Jhakrani has registered the sale-deed after proper verification on production of NOC for sale issued by DDO
(Rev) Nasir Abbas Soomro and on a copy of fresh form VII issued by Mukhtiarkar Abdul Latif Brohi dated 14-2-2002.
(6) Mutation entry in favour of Messrs Grid was kept by Tapedar Sharfuddin Shaikh and attested by Mukhtiarkar Abdul Latif Brohi vide Entry No,92 dated 12-6-2002. There is no role of Muhammad.
5. Ashraf Kumbhar, then Surveyor regarding keeping or attesting mutation entry.
6. "A prima facie case of fraudulent/ illegal entry of state land ad-measuring 25-00 in the name of one Muhammad Ashraf and subsequent sale of 4-00 acres to Messrs Grid on the basis of bogus and fake Entry No,22, NOC for sale and fresh form. VII and mutation entry in favour of Messrs Grid has been made out against
(a) Mr. Nasir Abbas Soomro, then DDO (Rev). Gulshan-e-Iqbal.
(b) Mr. Muhammad Rafique Qureshi, then Mukhtiarkar Scheme 33, Karachi, (c) Mr. Abdul Latif Brohi, then Mukhtiarkar, Scheme 33, Karachi, (d) Mr. Sharfuddin Shaikh, then Tapedar. EDO (Rev) Office Karachi, (e) Mr. Sabir Ali Khushk then Tapedar Gujhro, Scheme 33 Karachi and (f) Mr. Muhammad Ashraf, private person, have committed the offence. Hence this F.I.R. has been registered."
7. Learned counsel for applicant/ accused in Criminal Bail Application No,986 of 2010 has argued that the F.I.R. against the applicant is in violation of second proviso of Rule 4 of Sindh Enquiries and Anti- Corruption Rules, as after the dropping of the case by the Chief Secretary/Chairman ACC-I under Rule 14(b), the Chairman Anti-Corruption had absolutely no jurisdiction in the matter especially when the review application of the Chairman Enquiries and Anti-Corruption Establishment, Karachi was also dismissed. Per learned counsel the NOC for sale was issued by the concerned Mukhtiarkar on the basis of available record on 14-3-2002, which was only countersigned by the applicant/accused. The said NOC for sale was valid for four weeks only and during the validity period no sale-deed was registered. On the contrary the applicant/accused on coming to know of the alleged foul play immediately cancelled the said NOC for sale on 15-4-2002 and no overt act was committed by the applicant in furtherance of said NOC and in fact on his recommendation inquiry was commenced. Learned counsel also contended that there is delay of more than eight years in lodging of F.I.R. for which no plausible explanation has been given. Per learned counsel in spite of the dropping of the case by the competent authority and F.I.R. has been lodged for mala fide reasons, falsely implicating the applicant accused in the case and it was apprehended and feared that the applicant would have been arrested and humiliated in the eyes of the society if he would have approached the Court of Special Judge Anti-Corruption (P) Karachi.
8. Learned counsel for applicant/ accused in Criminal Bail Application No,1044 of 2010 has argued that the applicant/accused has been falsely implicated in the case. Per learned counsel no specific role has been assigned to the applicant/accused and Entry No,92 dated 12-6-2002 was not kept by the applicant/ accused on that date, on the contrary the said entry was posted on 10- 6-2002 when he was not posted there, rather he joined his duties on 12-6-2002 and on the directions of the concerned Mukhtiarkar he has put his signature on Form No,VII although Entry No,92 was posted by Revenue surveyor. Per learned counsel the applicant/accused had no concern with the issuance of earlier Form No,VII, NOC for sale and the registration of the sale-deed.
9. Per learned counsel the Anti-Corruption Establishment has not implicated Muhammad Ashraf Kumbhar, then Surveyor in this case and with mala fide intention setup a story against the applicant/ accused. Per learned counsel there is no allegation in the F.LR. that applicant/ accused was entrusted any record and he converted the same to his personal benefit. Per learned counsel in spite of the report of the Investigating Officer F.I.R. has been lodged for mala fide reasons to humiliate and harass the applicant, and it was apprehended and feared that the applicant would have been arrested and humiliated in the eyes of the society if he, would have approached the Court of Special Judge Anti-Corruption. (P) Karachi.
10. Learned D.P.-G. has vehemently opposed both the bail applications. Per learned A.P.-G. the applicants/accused are nominated in the F.I.R. with the specific role assigned to them. She further contended that applicant/accused Nasir Abbas Soomro has tiled an application under section 249-A, Cr.P.C. before the trial Court for acquittal. She prayed that this interim pre-arrest bail application may be treated as protective bail applications and the applicants/accused may be directed to approach the trial court. She in support of her contention has relied upon PLD 2009 SC 427.
11. I have heard both the learned counsel and the learned D.P.-G. and pursued the records. Prima facie there is no direct evidence that either of the applicants/accused have manipulated any record of rights or have made any false Entry No,22, although applicant/accused in Criminal Bail Application No,986 of 2010 has counter, signed the NOC for sale which was duly signed by the Mukhtiarkar. It is also noted that his case was dropped by the Chief Secretary/Chairman ACC-I under the said Rule 14(b). On the contrary the NOC was cancelled by the said accused/applicant and even the enquiry was commenced on his initiative.
12. From the available record the applicants have no concern with the purchaser or the seller, including the registration of the sale-deed. The allegations against the applicant/accused in Criminal Bail Application No,1044 of 2010 are vague on the grounds that the later had taken charge on 12-6-2002 much after the said Entry No,22 was made NOC for sale was issued and sale deed was registered. There is considerable delay in the lodging of the F.I.R., all documents are available with the prosecution and the applicants/ accused are not required for any further investigation.
13. The applicants/accused are Government employees and have fully cooperated with the Investigating Officer and there is little or no chance for tampering with the evidence or absconding of the applicants/accused. At this stage no purpose would be served if the applicants/ accused are put behind bars, which would cause irreparable loss to their careers and reputation.
14. From the aforesaid facts and reasons, I have come to the tentative conclusion that there is reasonable doubt in the case of the prosecution and it is to be determined whether the applicants/accused have acted fraudulently and illegally or manipulated the record of rights in any manner and as such- the case requires further enquiry within the meaning of section 497(2), Cr.P.C. Under the circumstances the applicants/accused are entitled to the benefit of bail on the same terms and conditions of the earlier orders dated 21-9-2010 in Criminal Bail Application No,986 of 2010 and 6-10-2010 in Criminal Bail Application No,1044/2010. The trial court should not be prejudice or influenced by the above discussions which are only tentative and should decide the case expeditiously in an equitable manner, based on the material on record and evidence to be adduced at trial.