' IJAZ AHMAD CHAUDHRY, C.J.---Through this single judgment we intend to dispose of this petition as well as W.P. No,26021 of 2010 having commonality of law and facts viz: the petitioners in both the petitions, having been arrested in NAB Reference No,62 of 2008, have moved these petitions under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan 1973, for their release on bail pending trial of the said Reference.
2. Tersely, the facts forming background of these petitions are that during the years 2005-2008 when Hamesh Khan (petitioner in W.P. No,26021 of 2010) was the President of the Bank of Punjab, Sheikh Muhammad Afzal (petitioner in W.P. No,2504 of 2011), having connived with his co-accused .Including the Bank Officers/officials defrauded the Bank of Punjab to the tune of billions of rupees.
Pursuant to the publication of news in the national press about the said fraud and misappropriation of huge amounts from different branches of the Bank of Punjab, situated at Tufail Road, Davis Road and the Main Branch of Lahore, the State Bank of Pakistan conducted audit of the said bank on 22-6-2010 and pointed out the details of the amounts misappropriated by the accused by committing fraud and forgery. In the month of August, 2007. National Accountability Bureau (NAB) Authorities initiated proceedings against accused persons under the provisions of the NAB Ordinance on a complaint made by one Khalid Zaheer, Head of the Fraud and Risk Management Unit of the Bank of Punjab.
3. During the aforesaid proceedings another complaint was also received from the Acting President of the Bank of Punjab on 5-5-2008 whereupon the Investigating Officer conducted investigation, according to which Sheikh Muhammad Afzal (petitioner in W.P. No,2504 of 2011) was declared mastermind of the whole episode of fraud committed with the Bank of Punjab. The Investigating Officer further opined that being in league with his co-accused, who are also the bank employees, Sheikh Muhammad Afzal (petitioner in W.P No,2504 of 2011) and his other family members by opening fictitious/proxy accounts by using fake and forged National Identity Cards, caused a loss of Rs,9.00 billion to the Bank of Punjab. It was also unearthed during investigation that Sheikh Muhammad Afzal (petitioner in W.P. No,2504 of 2011) and his other family members also obtained financial facilities by mortgaging valueless properties after fixing their worth more than 60 to 80 times high of their real value. During investigation, it also surfaced on the scene that Sheikh Muhammad Afzal (petitioner in W.P. No,2504 of 2011), Muhammad Munir, Ali Ejaz, Abid Raza and lrfan Ali with aid, assistance and active conspiracy of other co-accused, including Hamesh Khan (petitioner in W.P. No,26021 of 2010) opened 23 accounts in the Corporate Branch, Davis Road, Lahore as also in Tufail Road Branch of the Bank of Punjab. After having opened the aforesaid fictitious accounts the accused obtained pecuniary benefit of Rs,4.00 billion through illegal means under the garb of loans against fictitious documents. It was further concluded by the Investigating Officer that out of the aforesaid 23 accounts in the names of different forged and fictitious companies/firms, only Haris Steel Industries exists and the funds so obtained fraudulently were utilized in Stock Exchange Business, real estate and fixed investments/deposits in various banks.
Having coming to know about their fate the accused persons with a view to cover the fraud and forgery committed by them which was dug out during audit conducted by the State Rank of Pakistan, they merged 23 fake accounts into three main accounts of Haris Steel Industries, Haider Steel and Prime Steel Traders on 21-6-2007. Further, the financial liability of all the aforesaid three firms was raised from Rs,5.00 billion to Rs,9.00 billion. Hamaish Khan (petitioner in W.P. No,26021 of 2010), Aziz-ul-Hameed and Haroon Aziz accused, with active connivance of Sh. Muhammad Afzal (petitioner in W.P. No,2504 of 2011), Muhammad Hanif, Ali Ejaz, Abid Raza and Irfan Ali co-accused got rescheduled the entire liability of Rs,9.00 billion for eleven years against the same documents.
The statements of accounts of the aforesaid fictitious accounts revealed that whole amounts were transferred to CDC Stock Exchange accounts of Sh. Muhammad Afzal (petitioner in W.P. No,2504 of 2011), his family members and other co-accused to purchase shares worth billions of rupees out of which shares worth Rs,150.00 million were blocked by the NAB under the relevant provisions of law.
5. During the course of investigation, warrant was obtained from the court of competent jurisdiction for carrying out the search of office of accused Sheikh Muhammad Afzal, Muhammad Munir, Ali Ijaz, Abid Raza, (fictitious name Waris Malik). During the said search, record of fake Companies/firms, ownership documents pertaining to hundreds of properties worth billions of rupees situated in posh areas, acquired after obtaining the above mentioned illegal pecuniary benefits in the names of Sh. Muhammad Afzal (petitioner in W.P. No,2504 of 2011), his other family members and office employees were recovered.
6. During investigation it also came to light that Hamesh Khan (petitioner in W.P. No,26021 of 2010) maintained Account No,01-151-0044-8 at Habib Bank Limited, Cavalary Ground Branch, Lahore jointly with his wife Munira Arif with balance upto Rs,60 Million which was transferred in the account of a near relative of Hamesh Khan namely Zahid Arif.
7. The NAB Authorities having found the aforesaid accused persons guilty of misdeeds committed through aforesaid transactions carried out on fictitious documents filed the aforesaid Reference before the Accountability Court, Lahore.
8. Learned counsel for the petitioner in Writ Petition No,2504 of 2011 contends that the petitioner is innocent, law-abiding citizen and having renowned business of billions of rupees obtained loan of Rs,6.1 billion from the Bank of Punjab against the mortgage of various properties and collateral securities that the aforesaid loan was sanctioned by the Board of Directors of the Bank of Punjab in accordance with rules, regulations and the law and if any irregularity was committed during the process of sanction of the said loan, the same was the result of inadvertence and oversight of the Bank officials who processed the matter for sanctioning of loan; that the loan was sanctioned in the year 2006-2007 which was rescheduled in the year 2008 and at the time of rescheduling of the loan Rs,450.00 million was paid to the Bank of Punjab as down payment, and the next instalment was to be paid in the month of June, 2011 and according to the balance sheet of the Bank of Punjab for the year 2007-2008 the petitioner and his aforesaid three business concerns were not shown as defaulters, whereas the loan was shown as validly sanctioned and approved; that the rescheduling of the loan itself is sufficient to substantiate the innocence of the petitioner; that the petitioner and his son Haris were arrested from Malaysia on 18-11-2009 in compliance with the order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan in C.P. No,20 of 2009 and since then he is behind the bars without any material progress in the trial for which the petitioner cannot be held responsible in any manner whatsoever; that rescheduling of the loan, obtained by the petitioner, was 'admitted by the Bank of Punjab in its parawise comments submitted before this Court in Writ Petition No,4029 of 2008 filed by Haris Steel Industries Pvt. Limited etc., as such, this fact makes the case of the petitioner that of further inquiry into his guilt; that no recovery is to be effected from the petitioner; that trial of the case is not likely to be concluded in the near future; that the petitioner is suffering from various diseases which cannot be properly treated in the Jail Hospital rather the same require special treatment in any hospital outside the jail premises; that co-accused of the petitioner namely Adil Khan, Zia-ul-Haq, Haroon Aziz, Aziz-ul-Hameed and Shoaib Qureshi have already been released on bail by this Court and case of the petitioner being at par with those of his co-accused, he is entitled to bail on the basis of rule of consistency; that during the proceedings in C.P. No,39 of 2009, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan has already constituted a high Salvage Committee headed by a former Hon'ble. Judge of the Supreme Court of Pakistan which has already started selling and alienating movable and immovable assets mortgaged and surrendered by the petitioner, his other family members and the aforesaid three business concerns, the amount of which is being adjusted against the outstanding liability of the petitioner and the petitioner as well as his family members are fully cooperating with the aforesaid Salvage Committee, as such, the interest of justice demands that the petitioner be released on bail so that he could be able to sell the aforesaid properties through the Salvage Committee for fetching higher rates thereof by using his expertise; that under the provisions of section 31-B of the NA Ordinance 1999 a Reference can only be filed on Reference by the Governor State Bank of Pakistan but in the instant case the proceedings against the petitioner were not initiated on the recommendations of the Governor State Bank of Pakistan; that it is well settled law that as and when investigation is completed and there remains nothing to be recovered from the accused, he deserves to be released on bail forthwith under the cardinal principle of law that bail cannot be withheld as punishment and that fleeing away from the country by the petitioner was not intentional rather just to save the life from the law-enforcing agencies the petitioner went abroad.
9. The arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner in W.P. No,26021 of 2010 can be summed up in the words that the entire proceedings, conducted by the NAB Authorities, are without lawful authority; that as per section 31(C) of the NAB Ordinance 1999 in the matter of officers/officials of any bank, prior to initiation of proceedings approval by the Governor State Bank of Pakistan is sine qua non but in the instant case the NAB conducted the proceedings without the requisite approval by the competent authority; that despite availing physical remand of the petitioner for a considerable time the NAB Authorities have miserably failed to collect even a scrap of evidence; that the National Accountability Bureau has not been properly constituted as Deputy Chairman cannot act as Chairman; that the loans in question were approved by the Board of Directors constituted for the purpose and the petitioner had nothing to do with the said approval; that after having come to know about the opening of fake accounts in the name of dummy persons, the petitioner immediately ordered for complete investigation and simultaneously reported the matter to the State Bank of Pakistan; that opening of fake accounts was a preplanned scheme just to get enhanced the loan facility of Harris Steel Mills; that the decision regarding rescheduling of the loan was also taken by the Board of Directors of the Bank of Punjab at the back of the petitioner; that the petitioner did not deviate from the standard banking practices while restructuring the loan of Harris Steel Mills; that at the time when the petitioner was the President of the Bank of Punjab, the affairs of the bank were running in a very smooth manner; that there was no default on the part of Harris Steel Mills towards the repayment of loan, thus no loss was caused to the bank; that the Acting President who filed complaint against the petitioner had grudge in his mind for the reason that he was charge-sheeted by the petitioner when he was serving as Senior Vice-President of the Bank; that the petitioner cannot be refused bail merely on account of his alleged abscondance; that the petitioner is also entitled to the grant of bail on the basis of rule of consistency as other co-accused with almost similar role have already been released on bail and that no useful purpose would be served by further detaining the petitioner in jail. In addition to these oral submissions, learned counsel has also relied upon the cases reported as Kalb-e-Ali and 2 others v. Chairman National Accountability Bureau and 4 others (2011 PCr.LJ 565), Sh. Aijaz A hmad v. D.G. NAB (2009 PCr.LJ 1019), Muhammad Nadeem Anwar and another v. National Accountability Bureau and others (PLD 2008 SC 645), Asghar Ali alias Kaloo v. The State (PLD 2008 Lahore 191), Nadeem Majeed v. The State (2007 SCMR 1958), Peer Mukaram-ul-Haq v. National Accountability Bureau and others (2006 SCMR 1225), Ayaz Younus v. The State and another (2006 MLD 452), National Accountability Bureau v. Khalid Masood and another (20G5 SCMR 1291), Tariq Saeed and another v, Chairman National Accountability Bureau and 2 others (2005 YLR 445), Farrukh Sayyar Khan v. The State and another (2005 MLD 519), Ch. Zulfiqar Ali v. The State (PLD 2002 SC 546), Khan Asfandyar Wali and others v. Federation of Pakistan and others (PLD 2001 SC 607) and (PLD ,1992 SC 463).
10. On the other hand, learned Deputy Prosecutor-General NAB, assisted by the Special Prosecutor NAB, while opposing the petition filed by Sh. Muhammad Afzal (petitioner in W.P. No,2405 of 2011), argued that having engineered a plan and connived with his co-accused played a fraud which put the banking sector in Pakistan at guard as 'a huge amount of Rs,9.00 billion was misappropriated by the petitioner; that it is not a matter of fraud simplicitor rather due to the said abominable acts of the petitioner, the Bank of Punjab was at the verge of bankruptcy; that according to the petitioner himself certain properties have already been said away by the Salvage Committee constituted by the Hon'ble Supreme Court the said fact alone is sufficient to connect him with the commission of offence; that the petitioner, in connivance with the bank officers/officials opened three accounts in the names of Messrs Harris Steel Industries, Haider Steel owned by his employee Ali Ejaz and Prime Steel Traders owned by his another employee Waris Malik with fictitious CNICs; that Haider Steel or Prime Steal Traders never operated the business of steel; that the petitioner played fraud with the Bank by introducing false mortgagors, guarantors and producing fake CNICs of account-holders in addition to fake valuation and unrealistic prices of mortgaged properties; that apart from the aforesaid fraud, the petitioner also obtained credit facilities of inland LCS by falsely showing that goods were being purchased from one of his company by the other by opening separate accounts of his company in different branches; that the petitioner, being the major beneficiary of aforesaid transactions, is fully responsible for the loss occurred to the bank; that the petitioner mortgaged with the Bank 30 properties (purchased by the so-called mortgagors) during the period w.e.f, 4-5-2005 and 20-7-2006 and the total value of the properties was shown to be Rs,3.386 billion whereas as per 31 sale deeds pertaining to these properties the total price at which these properties were purchased add up to Rs,29.144 million and that is why the mortgagors held fictitious identity having fake CNICS. Further submitted; that during the search conducted by NAB Authorities pursuant to the warrant issued by the competent authority, many fictitious documents used for the fraud were also recovered and it came to light that money was utilized supposedly for the land and were used in various accounts of benami associates and family members of the petitioner; that involvement of the petitioner in this scam has been proved beyond any shadow of doubt; that the request of the petitioner for plea-bargain also strengthens the view that he was fully involved in the drama which aimed to cause loss to the national exchequer, thus the attempt to create an impression of innocence is entirely a false one; that in the current scenario, the petitioner cannot be granted bail because not only due to gruesome nature of the crime but matter involved is of public importance; that in view of the past abscondance of the petitioner and all efforts made for his arrest, there is every possibility of his fleeing from the country in the event he is allowed bail; that the petitioner always used acrobatic acts and played hide and seek with the courts inasmuch as when he was directed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan to appear before the Court instead of complying with the order of the apex Court of the country, he appointed an Advocate for himself and his son by signing power of attorney which was presented before the Court wherein the impression was given that the petitioner was in U.K. Or in U.A.E. But actually he was in Malaysia; that the petitioner who successfully allured even the then President of Bank of Punjab at the time of playing folly with the national exchequer, in the event of his release on bail, he would definitely tamper with the prosecution evidence and would impede the way of trial; that the petitioner being shrewd and clever person employed a considerable number of persons in order to defraud the public and he used the said persons as tools to put the fraud in reality; that the jurisdiction of this Court regarding grant of bail to the petitioner is not denied but for exercise of such equitable jurisdiction the petitioner should constitute his bona fide and the same cannot be used in the aid of looters and plunderers; that the matter is still under investigation and in case of release of the petitioner on bail there is apprehension of hampering of investigation process; that the petitioner and his other family members are not cooperating with the Salvage Committee constituted by the Hon'ble Supreme Court for alienation/sellirig of properties of the petitioner to adjust prices thereof against the outstanding liability of the petitioner; that grant of bail to the petitioner on medical ground is not justifiable as no document tending to manifest precarious condition of the petitioner has been appended with the petition and that it is not fair to release the petitioner on bail till the time the loss caused to the national exchequer is make good.
11. Insofar as the petition of Hamesh Khan is concerned, the Deputy Prosecutor-General NAB as well as the Special Prosecutor NAB submit that he being President of the Bank of Punjab at the relevant time was fully responsible for the fraud, played by Sh. Muhammad Afzal and Company; that he cannot shrug of his liability on the ground that the loan was sanctioned by the Board. Of Directors for the reason that the said Board was under the direct supervision of the petitioner and was accountable for any omission or commission with regard to the affairs of the bank; that even after becoming fraud public, the assertion of the petitioner that Harris Steel Mills is not defaulter speaks volumes about his involvement in the said fraud; that on the one hand petitioner has taken the stance that the loan was approved by the Board of Directors without his knowledge but on the other his plea that the loan was restructured in the interest of bank is somewhat meaningful; that the ground of the petitioner that he was involved in this case on the complaint of the Acting President who had an axe to grind against the interest of the petitioner due to the grudge nourished in his mind on account of the charge sheet issued by the petitioner against-him while he was posted as Senior Vice-President of the Bank of Punjab is not tenable for the reason that besides complaint by the Acting President another complaint was also moved by Mr. Khalid Zaheer, Head, Fraud and Risk Management Unit of the Bank of Punjab; 'that it is beyond the comprehension of a man of prudent mind that the petitioner was not aware about such a big scam; that during investigation active liaison between the petitioner and Ramesh Khan the mastermind of the whole episode of fraud and that the petitioner being an influential person there - is every possibility that after his release on bail he would tamper with the prosecution evidence.
12. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and also perused the bulk of documents attached with this petition from where it is clear that. Sh. Muhammad Afzal petitioner opened an account in the name of Haris Steel Industries Pvt. Limited with the main, branch of the Bank of Punjab Lahore on 25-1-2006. From 26-1-2006 to 21-6-2007 the petitioner obtained an amount of Rs,2.30 billion under the garb of credit facilities against personal guarantees and fraudulent securities. The documents regarding mortgage deeds of 31 properties, personal guarantees and other loan documents were fake as per NADRA record. The petitioner also opened yet another account with the main branch of Bank of Punjab on 20-7-2005 in the name of Haider Steel showing Ali Ejaz its sole proprietor. During the investigation it came on record that said Ali Ejaz was an accountant in the Haris Steel Industries who admitted this, fact in his statement before the Accountability Court. The petitioner also prepared forged CNIC of Abid Iftikhar with the connivance of said Ali Ejaz which was frequently used in the bank documents for preparation of fake mortgage deeds, personal guarantees and some other documents. On the strength of these documents the petitioner withdrew an amount of Rs,150 billion from 20-7-2005 to 21-6-2007 under the garb of credit facilities in the name of Haider Steel. On 26-4-2006 the petitioner in connivance with one Abid Raza, an employee in the petitioner's company namely Haris Steel Industries, opened an account in the name of Prime Steel with the main branch of the Bank of Punjab which was opened on the basis of fake identity of Abdul Razzaq. From the said account to the petitioner availed pecuniary benefit of Rs,900 million. During the investigation it transpired that Prime Steel never existed on the scene. The charge documents including, mortgage deeds of the properties, personal guarantees and other loan documents are fake. The petitioner being mastermind of whole of the scheme of preparing forged documents on the basis whereof he obtained pecuniary benefits by managing to open 23 accounts in the names of different fake persons, is fully responsible for the colossal loss occurred to the batik due to the said uncalled for activities of the petitioners.
13. In the aforesaid background prima facie it is established on record that Sh. Muhammad Afzal (petitioner in Writ Petition. No,2405 of 2011) having connived with Hamesh Khan (petitioner in Writ Petition No,26021 of 2010) caused a colossal loss of billions of rupees to the Bank of Punjab due to which the said bank travelled towards bankruptcy. Such like persons, in our view, do not deserve any leniency.
14. Another important aspect of the matter is the abscondance of the petitioners. If they were so innocent as they have claimed in their petitions, why they flee from the country instead of proving their innocence before the competent authority. It is cardinal principle of criminal jurisprudence that an absconder loses some of his normal rights. There is no cavil with the proposition that abscondance alone cannot be made a ground for refusal of bail to an accused if he otherwise proves that his case falls within the mischief of further inquiry into his guilt. In the instant case the petitioner has miserably failed to establish that his involvement in the instant reference 'calls for further probe rather the acts of the petitioner during the pre-arrest era as well as post arrest speak volumes about his involvement in the commission of the offence.
15. Now adverting to the ground of ailment taken by Sh. Muhammad Afzal (petitioner in Writ Petition No,2405 of 2011) we have noted that not a single document has been appended with the petition wherefrom it can be gathered that petitioner is patient of a disease, which is not curable through treatment in the jail hospital. In the cases of fraud, almost every accused falls ill after his arrest.
Even otherwise in the eventuality of any serious disease, the jail authorities can take steps for treatment of the petitioner even outside the jail premises. Since the petitioner has failed to specify the disease, which can be proved to be fatal for his life, we do not see eye to eye with the learned counsel for the petitioner for grant of bail to Sh. Muhammad Afzal on the ground of alleged ailment.
1.6. As far as the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that prior to any action by the NAB Authorities approval of the Governor State Bank of Pakistan was a condition precedent, suffice it to observe that the NAB Authorities took action pursuant to the audit conducted by the State Bank of Pakistan in the accounts of the Bank of Punjab. At the time of submitting his request for plea bargain, Sh. Muhammad Afzal petitioner did not object to the legality of the Reference filed against him and other co-accused. Thus it is not open for them to put a challenge -to the legality of the Reference filed against them. Further guilt of Sh. Muhammad Afzal petitioner is also established from the fact that after his arrest he readily made an application for plea bargain to the NAB Authorities. If he was so innocent then why he surrendered so lightly. Likewise, Hamesh Khan petitioner admitted in his petition that the loan was restructured in the interest of bank. In the said scenario one thing has established that Hamesh Khan, the then President of the Bank of Punjab hotly pursued to cover the fraud played by Sh. Muhammad Afzal while availing loan facilities on the basis of fake documents.
17. Insofar as the grant of bail to the petitioners on the basis of rule of consistency is concerned, we feel no hesitation to hold that the role of the co-accused who have already been granted bail poles apart from that of the present petitioners. The said persons were either the subordinates of Hamesh Khan petitioner or they were the employees of Harris Steel Mills owned by Sh. Muhammad Afzal. If any illegality was committed by them during the process of the sanctioning of loan, the same was the result of undue influence and pressure exerted by Hamesh Khan in the capacity of the President of the Bank of Punjab and Sh. Muhammad Afzal being the employer of the persons.
This being the position, the petitioners cannot claim bail on the basis of rule of consistency as their role is quite distinguishable from those who were granted bail.
18. During proceedings in C.P. No,39 of 2009 the Hon'ble Supreme Court constituted a Salvage Committee under the supervision of a former Hon'ble Judge of the Supreme Court. The output of the said committee is not up to the mark for the reason that Sh. Muhammad Afzal and his other family members are reluctant to cooperate with the said committee in pointing out the properties being held by Sh. Muhammad Afzal, his other family, members and benamidars. In such situation, the petitioners do not deserve any leniency. If Sh. Muhammad Afzal petitioner is released on bail, it would not be possible to make the loss good occurred to the Bank of Punjab due to the fraud played by him in connivance with Hamesh Khan and others. Likewise, Hamesh Khan being an influent person would definitely tamper with the prosecution evidence in the event of his release on bail.
19. Now taking up the plea of the petitioners that the investigation has been completed and no useful purpose would be served by detaining them further in jail, we are of the view that though interim reference has been filed against the petitioners but the investigation would remain continue till the filing of the final Reference. During the investigation a chain of incidents have already been unearthed which are sufficient to prove that the petitioners besides the fraud subject-matter of the instant petitions are also involved in other uncalled for activities. In this am of the matter if the petitioners are released on bail, there is every possibility that they would cover their hidden misdeeds and Investigating Officer would be deprived of a fair chance to probe into the matter.
20. The past conduct of the petitioners also disentitle them for grant of bail inasmuch as Sh.
Muhammad Afzal was arrested from Malaysia after involving different National agencies as well as the International Agencies including Interpol. Likewise, Ramesh Khan did not surrender immediately after filing of the Reference proof positive whereof is that while filing the interim Reference before the Court the Chairman NAB observed that the petitioners are reluctant to cooperate with the Investigating Officer and they are avoiding to appear before the Investigating Officer. These facts strengthen the apprehension that the petitioners after getting bail from this Court would manage to leave the country. Moreover, the influence of the petitioners is also abundantly clear from the fact that their names were placed on the Exit Control List due to the intervention of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the possibility of their fleeing away by preparing forged and fake documents, as they have no match in the said field, cannot be ruled out.
21. Now coming to the case law cited by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of Ramesh Khan petitioner we are of the view that this Court has the jurisdiction to grant the bail to the petitioners while exercising constitutional jurisdiction but while doing so we cannot stretch the provisions of Criminal Procedure Code just to facilitate the petitioners to get themselves released on bail as the provisions of the said Code have specifically been ousted in the NAB Ordinance. Even otherwise, the provisions of a special law override the general law. Thus, in our humble view the case-law cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner in Writ Petition No, 26021 of 2010 is not applicable due 'to peculiarity of the facts and the propositions of law involved in those cases.
22. Now adverting to the petitioners' contention that they are behind the bars for the last considerable period, we have no hesitation in our mind to hold that no statutory period has been given for such cases for the reason that the issues 'involved in these matters require detailed probe which can take months. As the petitioners have failed to otherwise establish that their case is that of further inquiry, they cannot claim bail on the ground that they are behind the bars for a considerable period.
23. As a necessary corollary to the discussion made in the foregoing paragraphs it has been established that the petitioners are involved in the commission of the fraud which ultimately deprived the National exchequer from billion of rupees. Further the petitioners have miserably failed to establish that their case falls within the ambit of further inquiry justifying exercise of constitutional jurisdiction by this Court for grant of post arrest bail to the petitioners. The past conduct of the petitioners also renders them disentitled for the grant of bail and the possibility of their fleeing away from country again cannot be ruled out. Consequently, we see no merits in these petitions which are hereby dismissed.