SHAHNAWAZ TARIQ, J.---This common order will dispose of aforesaid petitions filed by Abdul Hadi Siddiqi and Aleemuddin for seeking post arrest bail in Reference No.3 of 2014.
2. The NAB filed a Reference No.3 of 2014 sunder section 18(g) read with section 24(b) of NAO, 1999 in the Accountability Court against 10 accused including above mentioned petitioners. The relevant portions of allegations made in Reference against both the petitioners are separately reproduced as under:- "(g) Abdul Hadi Siddiqui (accused No. 7)
The accused No. 7 is the main person involved in the illegal admissions which was done by way of preparation of bogus documents. He took over the charge of Student Affairs in April 1998. He remained in the same section all along dealing with the Student Affairs. He demanded and accepted illegal gratification of Rs. 0.5 million to 0.7 million from each student and distributed it amongst other co-accused. He organized, aided and assisted the illegal admissions of 38 students or more in the Sindh Medical College, Karachi".
"(h) Aleemuddin (accused No. 8)
The accused No. 8 was Incharge of the Student Branch where enrolment and examination forms were processed and entire record regarding admissions was maintained. He processed the examination forms of students who were not eligible. The illegal admissions/cards could not have been prepared and accepted without his involvement. He received his share of money as being part of the gang. He was responsible to get the illegal Enrolment/Admit Cards from Karachi University. He used to coordinate with the staff of the Karachi University."
3. According to the petitioner Abdul Hadi Siddiqui, he was posted in student section as program coordinator and was attached with Vice-Principal of SMC. On 8-2-2003, petitioner was issued a show-cause notice, and suspended from service on 1-3-2003 on the allegations that extra admission forms were detected by the Karachi University. It was further stated that his duties did not include sanctioning or admitting students as such he was under no obligation and legal liability to be charged with any irregularity in extra admission in SMC. During the period of Prof. Akbar Haider Soomro examination forms of 38 students were sent for examination and their viva voce was also conducted without any objection for which the petitioner was not responsible at all.
4. While the petitioner Aleemuddin stated that he was posted as Superintendent under the administrative control of the Principal of SMC and Chairman Academic Council SMC. He was issued show-cause notice that the enrolment and examination forms were scrutinized and it was alleged that he misguided the senior officers about the enrolment and examination of first professional part A and B. It was further alleged in the show-cause that a racket was functioning in the college and Aleemuddin was directly or indirectly privy in bogus admissions and enrolments. He replied that he had verified the admission forms received as per original list of students but he was not responsible for the fake forms which were sent to the University of Karachi without verification and his signature. The Karachi University informed the college that the forms relating to the fake admissions were signed by Dr. Naseeruddin, Vice-Principal SMC. A large number of students appeared in MBBS examination but 38 fake admissions were cancelled as their names were not appearing in the test result.
5. Syed Ansar Huksain, the learned counsel for both the petitioners argued that petitioners are innocent and have falsely been involved. Being the employees of lower cadre, they had no deciding authority. The admission forms were submitted under the genuine signatures of the competent authority. Petitioners have not benefited themselves by any corrupt practices. During the investigation their accounts were checked by NAB but same were not seized due to availability of meagre amount. He further submitted that the longest course of investigation proved that there was no substance to file Reference against petitioners within reasonable time, and statements of P.Ws. Were recorded after five years, hence they are liable to be released on bail and their case requires further inquiry.
6. Mr. Noor Muhammad Dayo, learned Additional DPG has contended that while dealing with the question of bail this court has to consider the grounds mentioned in section 497, Cr.P.C. Petitioners are nominated in the Reference with specific roles, and P.Ws. Have implicated them in their statements under section 161, Cr.P.C. As such a clear case is made out against them. Co-accused Naseeruddin, ExVice-Principal and Dr. Shamsher in their confessional statements have deposed against petitioners, hence they are not entitled for grant of bail.
7. The perusal of record reflects that the alleged incident occurred in the year 2000-2001, but the statements of P.Ws. Were recorded by the Investigating Officer in the 2005 and he submitted the report on 13-10-2010, while Reference was filed by the NAB in the month of April, 2014. It is also matter of record that NAB had granted pardon to co-accused Naseeruddin, Ex-Vice Principal of SMC and Dr. Shamsher and thereafter their statements were recorded under section 164, Cr.P.C. By the Judicial Magistrate but after their statement, their pardon was cancelled by the DG NAB vide two letters dated 5th June, 2009. In the letter of withdrawing the pardon, it is written that pardon was granted on the condition of making full disclosure relating to the offence and since according to NAB, the aforesaid persons were failed to comply with the condition, the pardon was withdrawn which shows that NAB itself is not satisfied with the confessional statements made in lieu of pardon. Even otherwise, in their statement they have not specifically targeted the petitioners but they implicated many other persons also some of them are already on bail. The incident was committed in the year 2001, inquiry was started in the year 2005 and inquiry report was submitted in the year 2010 while the reference was moved in the year 2014. No justification was placed by the learned ADPG NAB for the inactive attitude of the NAB for this long delay which has made out the case of petitioners of further inquiry. In case of Abdul Khaliq v. State 1996 SCM R 1553, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that late recording of a statement of prosecution witness under section 161, Cr.P.C. Reduces its value unless delay is plausibly explained. In case of Abdullah Khan v. Abdul Qayoom and another, 1996 SCM R 493, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that bail cannot be withheld simply on the basis of statements supporting allegation of abetment made at a very belated stage. One more important factor which cannot be ignored is the effect of 164 statement after pardon and its further effect after the withdrawal of the pardon and what were the aims and objectives tried to be secured through the statement in lieu of pardon. The delay of about fourteen years in completion of investigations and filing of Reference without any plausible explanation in this particular case can also be considered a good ground for bail. It is well settled that even at the bail stage, principle of benefit of doubt can be considered. All such important factors need further inquiry which is only possible when the case is tried and concluded. In case of Sardar Amin Farooqui (2014 PCr.LJ 186), authored by one of us (Muhammad Ali Mazhar, J.), it was held that the further inquiry is a question which must have some nexus with the result of the case for which a tentative assessm ent of the material on record is to be considered for reaching just conclusion.
The case of further inquiry presupposes the tentative assessment which may create doubt with respect to the involvement of accused in the crime. In case of Muhammad Ismail v. Muhammad Rafiq another, PLD 1989 SC 585, the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that normally bail is not granted if the trial is likely to comment shortly, but in case calling for further inquiry the bail cannot be denied. Deeper appreciation is not permissible and only tentative assessment can made.
8. For the foregoing reasons, the petitioners are enlarged on bail subject to furnishing solvent surely in the sum of Rs.5,00,000 (Five Lacs) each and P.R. Bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Nazir of this Court. The learned trial Court shall not be influenced by the above observations which are tentative in nature. Since the matter is old and offence in question said to have been committed by the accused in the year 2000-2001, therefore, the learned trial Court is directed to expedite the trial and decide the reference within four months. Both the petitions are disposed of.