This order shall also dispose of connected Writ Petitions No.24320 of 2014 titled "Muhammad Shafique v. NAB through its Chairman and others" and 22063 of 2014 titled "Anwar-ul-Islam Qureshi v. NAB through its Chairman and others" as in all the three petitions the petitioners who are accused in Reference No.64 of 2014 pending adjudication before learned Accountability Court No.II, Lahore while invoking Constitutional jurisdiction of this Court seek premium of post-arrest bail.
2. Haseeb Ahmad Rashid and Muhammad Shafiq (petitioners in Writ Petitions Nos.21111 and 24320 of 2014) are private evaluators though approved by the Pakistan Banking Association during the course of investigation were involved in the said Reference.
3. Anwar-ul-Islam Qureshi, petitioner served as Regional Head of the Prime Bank (now known as Faisal Bank-complainant) from 24th of March, 2005 up till June, 2005 and ultimately resigned in November, 2005 from the said bank.
4. According to the grounds of arrest, Haseeb Ahmad Rashid, the petitioner prepared desktop evaluation report without ground verification and spot inspection showing the valuation of the property at exorbitant rate up to 540 Million and facilitated Sh. Muhammad Afzal (principal accused) to procure loan as the actual value of the properties stated to be evaluated was not more than Rs.14 Million as assessed later on.
5. Muhammad Shafiq, petitioner, was working as Assistant Manager in the firm working under the name and style of "Asrem private limited" from August, 2004 to August, 2007 and same allegation has been levelled against the said petitioner suggesting over valuation of the property in order to get the loan sanctioned in favour of Sh. Muhammad Afzal.
Allegation against Anwar-ul-Islam Qureshi petitioner in Writ Petition No.22063 of 2014 is that he facilitated the process of sanction of loan in favour of Sh. Muhammad Afzal by introducing him as accountholder and issuing directions to process the applications made by Sh. Muhammad Afzal.
6. Learned counsel for Hasib Ahmad Rashid petitioner though admitted issuance of four evaluation reports in respect of the property referred to in the said reports, showing the evaluation as contained in the grounds of arrest but making reference to all the four reports, it was submitted that the said reports were prepared at the request of Haris Steel Industry (Pvt.) Ltd., Lahore on 21st of March, 2005 made on 19th of March, 2005. Submitted that neither any request was made by the Prime Bank nor any reference was made by the Haris Steel Industry (Pvt.) Ltd. Regarding the proposal for sanction of loan. Submitted that the petitioner collected the particulars of land referred to in the reports from the sale deeds shown to him and the report was issued without prejudice for the consideration and/or privilege of Messrs Haris Steel Industry (Pvt.) Ltd. And their legal advisors only.
7. Submitting arguments on behalf of Muhammad Shafiq, petitioner, it was argued that no malice can be attributed to the petitioner because evaluation reports were prepared after spot inspection of land which was shown to the petitioner. Argued that the petitioner being Assistant Manager of Asrem (Pvt.) Ltd. Signed the reports in his official capacity. Further submitted that no or malice can be attributed to the petitioner while signing the reports because the said reports were never used by the Prime Bank while preparing proposal for sanction of loan. Further argued that the said reports were never considered by the loan sanctioning authority at any stage and as such the petitioner is entitled to concession of bail.
8. Submitting arguments on behalf of Anwar-ul-Islam Qureshi, petitioner, it was contended that he served as Regional Head of the Prime Bank for three months w.e.f. 24th of March, 2005 up till June, 2005 and then transferred to the marketing section of the bank and ultimately resigned from the bank in November, 2005. Submitted that there is no incriminating evidence mentioned in the grounds of arrest or in the Reference regarding the allegation of facilitation of loan in favour of Sh.
Muhammad Afzal. Contended that in view of the matter, the petitioner is also entitled to get post- arrest bail.
9. The learned ADPG while controverting the arguments canvassed by learned counsel for the petitioners in all the three petitions, submitted that it is an admitted fact that Hasib Ahmad Rashid who was running Messrs Hasib Associates after spot inspection prepared evaluation reports with malice-in-fact in aid, abetment and association of principal accused Sh. Muhammad Afzal, Chief Executive of Messrs Haris Steel Mills and without ground verification showing the value of the property to the tune of Rs.540 Million though in fact the actual market value of the said property was not more than Rs.14 Million. Submitted that in view of the bogus and fabricated reports, principal accused Sh. Muhammad Afzal got the loan sanctioned which otherwise could not have been granted to him.
10. Taking the case of Muhammad Shafiq, another private evaluator, it was submitted that he too prepared bogus reports in order to cause loss to the Prime Bank and to provide illegal gain to Sh.
Muhammad Afzal. Submitted that request was made by Prime Bank to the said petitioner to make evaluation of the landed property and in view of the reports submitted by the said petitioner, the management of the Prime Bank who had already in collusion with Sh. Muhammad Afzal granted loan to the principal accused.
11. Controverting the arguments advanced by learned counsel representing Anwar-ul-Islam Qureshi petitioner, it was submitted that he introduced principal accused i.e. Sh. Muhammad Afzal as account holder in the Gulberg Branch to get loan and issued direction to process the applications for loan. Further submitted that the petitioner being Regional Head facilitated the commission of offence.
Highlighting the cumulative effect of the role attributed to all the three petitioners, it was submitted that they are not entitled to concession of bail causing huge loss to the Prime Bank (now Faisal Bank).
12. Conscious consideration has been given by us to the arguments advanced.
13. Allegation against Hasib Ahmad Rashid petitioner is that he did not make spot inspection and prepared fabricated and bogus reports with regard to market value of the landed property giving wrong description of the same in order to facilitate the sanction of loan by the Prime Bank. Perusal of evaluation reports prepared by Hasib Ahmad Rashid on 21st of March, 2005 clearly reveals that request was not made by the Prime Bank to the firm of the petitioner to make spot inspection and submit evaluation report regarding the landed property upon the strength of which loan was claimed by the principal accused i.e. Sh. Muhammad Afzal.
On our query, learned ADPG for NAB admitted that according to established practice prevalent, prior to sanction of loan, the bank has to make formal request to the evaluators approved by Pakistan Banking Association which admittedly was never made to the said petitioner but in the opinion of learned law officer since the said reports' were used by the principal accused in order to procure the loan, therefore, it shall be presumed that the petitioner is also associate of the said accused.
We regret to share and endorse the opinion of the learned law officer. Evaluation reports were prepared by the firm of the petitioner on 25th of March, 2005 at the request of Messrs Haris Steel Industry made on 19th of March, 2005. During the course of investigation no such material was ever collected by the Investigating Officer to suggest that the Prime Bank ever made request to the petitioner to evaluate the property so that the proposal of loan may be sanctioned in favour of principal accused i.e. Sh. Muhammad Afzal.
We have perused the said reports in which it also does not find mentioned that the principal accused ever intimated the petitioner that evaluation is required for the purpose of advancement of loan. The Investigating Officer in attendance also admitted that no such evidence was collected during the course of investigation.
14. It is also to be noted that in the last lines of the report it finds mentioned that the reports have been issued for privilege of Messrs Haris Steel Industry and their legal advisors which has been much exploited by the learned law officer but nevertheless when the said observations are taken into consideration in its totality, it becomes crystal clear that the fact by itself is not sufficient to suggest, malice on the part of the petitioner or give impression that the said reports were prepared by the petitioner to facilitate sanction of loan.
In view of the matter, the case of petitioner requires further probe entitling him to get the premium of post-arrest bail.
15. Taking the case of Muhammad Shafique, petitioner, who was working as Assistant Manager in Asrem (Pvt.) Ltd., we have noted that Prime Commercial Bank, Main Gulberg Branch, Lahore made request to the said petitioner for evaluation of the land referred to in the said four reports and as such the argument canvassed by learned law officer regarding the involvement of the said petitioner though prima facie appears to be attractive but after going through the proposal for sanction of loan, the said reports by itself at this stage would not be sufficient to decline the premium of post-arrest bail. Reports prepared by the petitioner being Assistant Manager were prepared on 21st of May, 2005 while admittedly proposal for sanction of loan was initiated prior to said date. Learned ADPG maintained that though the said reports were prepared later on but were used while sanctioning the loan by the competent authority. We asked to point out from the minutes of the meeting that the reports submitted by the said petitioner were kept in view at the time of sanction of loan and the learned law officer as well as Investigating Officer after going through the relevant documents admitted that there is no mention of the four reports prepared by the said petitioner.
In the circumstances, the petitioner is entitled to get indulgence from this Court.
16. Allegation against the petitioner i.e. Anwar-ul-Islam Qureshi is that being Regional Head of the Prime Bank he introduced Sh. Muhammad Afzal as account holder. Fact is not disputed. However, introduction of a particular person as account holder by itself would not be sufficient to suggest at this stage conscious attempt on part of the said petitioner to facilitate the commission of offence.
Learned law officer for NAB also intimated that the principal accused made applications for credit facility to the said petitioner and the petitioner directed Asif Riaz to go through the proposal.
Submitted that the two letters addressed by the principal accused to the petitioner making request for credit facility are sufficient to suggest culpability of the said petitioner. As referred earlier, the first application of the petitioner was marked to Asif Riaz on 7th of April, 2014 with the direction to process the same. Similarly, the 2nd application of same kind was also marked to said Asif Riaz and name of one Mr. Anjum also finds mentioned.
Except marking these two applications to the persons named above and introduction of principal accused as ordinary account holder there is no other material against the petitioner which by itself at this stage would not be sufficient to suggest reasonable grounds regarding involvement of the said petitioner in the offence.
17. Pursuant to above discussion, all the three petitions are accepted and all the three petitioners are admitted to bail subject to furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs.500,000 (Rupees five hundred thousand) each with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned trial Court.
18. All the three petitioners shall also surrender their passports before the learned trial Court along with bail/surety bonds which shall remain in the custody of learned trial Court till the decision of Reference pending, adjudication against them.