MUHAMMAD ALI MAZHAR, J.---This petition was brought' to this court by Rashid Hussain to, challenge illegal detention of his brother Shahid Hussain. It was also prayed that detenue may be released on furnishing surety to the satisfaction of this court. Meanwhile NAB had filed Reference No,13 of 2014 on 30-9-2014, therefore, in view of the order passed by this court on 21-10-2014, Shahid Hussain was impleaded as petitioner and the counsel for the petitioner filed an amended title and requested that Shahid Hussain may be granted bail in the aforesaid Reference.
2. The brief facts are that petitioner Shahid Hussain received a telephonic call of respondent No,3 who asked him to visit NAB office for some investigation regarding NBP Airport Branch, Karachi.
After 3/4 days it came to the knowledge of the petitioner's family that he has been detained by the respondent No,3 in pursuance of warrant of arrest issued under N.A.O., 1999. The complaint was filed for and on behalf of Regional Chief NBP, regarding misappropriation/embezzlement of millions of rupees of custom collection, collected at Air Freight Unit (AFU) booth of NBP Karachi during the years 2009 to 2013. During investigation it revealed that two collection accounts of Customs Department were being operated at NEW Airport Branch Karachi i,e, Account No,1003-6 for deposit of duties and taxes collected AFU Booth.
The NBP authorities bound to deposit the cash collected on the next working day while Account No,1004-5 was being maintained for the deposit of duties and taxes through pay orders only and the NBP/AFU authorities were bound to forward pay order for clearing at their earliest. The investigation report further revealed that from 9-3-2013 to 15-3-2013 accused Nos.1 to 6 collected the duties and taxes but with criminal intention did not deposit the said amount in the above bank account. In paragraph 11 of the Reference it is alleged that all the accused persons in connivance with each other have misappropriated and embezzled a sum of Rs, 1,019,412,836 hence they have committed offence of corruption and corrupt practices as defined under section 9 of the N.A.O., 1999. The petitioner has been assigned role in sub-paragraph (n) and (o) of Paragraph (8) of the Reference, which are reproduced as under:- "(n) That the accused No,4 Muhammad Shahid Hussain, Ex-Branch Manager during his posting from 17-9-2011 to 12-3-2013 has been involved in illegal debiting of "Clearing Adjustment A/C # 4038" and the same were credited into the account of Collector Customs as per following details: TRN. DATEDEBIT ACCOUNTCREDIT ACCOUNTAMOUNT 4-7-2012CLG-ADJ.GL- 4038COC C- 1004-5117,941,650 12-10-2012CLG-ADJ.GL- 4038COC C- 1004-560,741,402 26-11-2012CLG-ADJ.GL- 4038COC C- 1004-59,000 28-11-2012CLG-ADJ.GL- 4038COC C- 1004-525,500,000 30-11-2012CLG-ADJ.GL- 4038COC C- 1004-537,500,000 7-12-2012CLG-ADJ.GL- 4038COC C- 1004-53,200,000 13-12-2012CLG-ADJ.GL- 4038COC C- 1004-522,500,000 14-12-2012CLG-ADJ.GL- 4038COC C- 1004-539,087,969 7-1-2013CLG-ADJ.GL- 4038COC C- 1004-56,938,950
(o) That he being Branch Manager of NBP Airport Branch Karachi illegally permitted the accused No.5 Waqas Ahmed Khan and others to work at AFU Booth. The said private persons were involved in clearance of GDs on credit basis, pocketing cash collection and illegally debiting of various accounts."
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the petitioner was taken into custody on 27-6- 2014 in violation of section 24(d)(a) of N.A.O., 1999. Even the grounds of arrest are vague and the respondents have misused their powers. He further argued that no specific role has been assigned in the Reference against him. He further argued that accused No,1 has already been granted bail by this court while accused Nos.6 and 7 are on pre-arrest bail by this court. Petitioner was arrested in the month of June, 2014 while the charge was framed by the learned trial Court on 2-10-2014. The prosecution has cited calendar of more than seventeen witnesses and so far the trial Court has been able to record examination-in-chief of only one witness. The investigation has been completed and no purpose would be served to retain the accused in custody for an unlimited period especially in the situation where the pace of trial is much slow which shows that trial Court will take considerable time to conclude the trial. The accused is rotting behind the bars since June, 2014 and in seven months examination-in-chief of only one witness has been recorded while under section 16 of N.A.O., 1999, court has to proceed the case from day to day and dispose of the same within thirty days which period has elapsed.
4. The learned ADPG NAB argued that the petitioner has played important role which is mentioned in paragraphs 8(n) and (o) of the Reference. He was posted as Branch Manager from 17-9-2011 to 12-3-2013 in AFU Booth where he committed the offence of corruption and corrupt practices. The arrest, detention and remand of the accused was lawful and strictly in accordance with law. He was duly informed about the grounds of arrest. During inquiry it revealed that the bank officials and some other unauthorized persons were involved in illegal banking by clearance of goods declaration on credit basis, pocketing of daily cash collection, shortage of cash and illegal debiting and since petitioner was posted Branch Manager he was found involved in unauthorized debiting and clearing as he permitted to work private persons who were involved in clearing goods declaration on credit basis. The accused has committed offence of misappropriation and caused loss to the public exchequer. The learned ADPG NAB also referred to statements of Muhammad Hassan Branch Manager, Allauddin Cashier/OG-II and Abu Sufyan, Cashier/OG-II, NBP, Airport Branch, Karachi recorded under section 161, Cr.P.C. By Senior Investigating Officer.
5. Heard the arguments. No doubt the petition was filed by the brother of the petitioner but after discloser of reference, Shahid Hussain was himself made the petitioner and learned counsel filed his Vakalatnama with the amended title which was taken on record. So far has the role of the petitioner is concerned it has been defined in sub-paras (n) and (o) of paragraph (8) of the Reference in which it is stated that Shahid Hussain Ex-Branch Manager was involved in illegal debiting of clearing adjustment in the account of Collector Customs. The prosecution has also shown a table containing ten entries of different amounts. On one hand the allegation is that the Ex-Branch Manager during his posting was involved in illegal debiting into the account of Collector Customs while in the next sub-para (o) the prosecution states that being Branch Manager Shahid Hussain permitted the accused No.5 Waqas Ahmed Khan and others to work at AFU Booth and the said private persons 'were involved in clearance of goods declaration on credit basis. The stand taken in both the paragraphs are contrary. Whether the petitioner was personally involved in illegal debiting or the said offence was committed with his connivance whether he permitted the accused No.5 and others to work at AFU Booth, this aspect will have to be seen during trial. It is also an admitted fact that Waqas Ahmed Khan accused No,5 has absconded who was allegedly permitted by petitioner to work at AFU Booth as in sub-para (p) it is stated that Waqas Ahmed Khan private unauthorized person illegally worked at. AFU Booth was a front man of accused No, 1 .
So in all fairness this question cannot be decided at this stage unless evidence is led in the trial Court.
6. The learned ADPG NAB referred to 161, Cr.P.C. Statement of Muhammad Hassan who narrated almost similar allegations but he himself admitted that he took charge as Manager of the concerned Branch on 12-3-2013 from petitioner while the details of alleged illegal debiting mentioned in the table are pertaining to the period from 4-7-2012 to 7-1-2013. He referred to Waqas Ahmed Khan but he also stated that since his posting he has not seen Waqas Ahmed Khan. He further stated that during' proceedings of NAB it revealed that Waqas Ahmed Khan was involved in clearance of G.D. On credit basis and collection of the same was pocketed. He further revealed that Waqas Ahmed Khan used to prepare illegal debit and credit scroll and his writing has been identified on the pink sheets of collection. The same person also highlighted the role of Nadeem Enterprises and firmly stated that the employees of AFU Booth in collusion with Messrs Nadeem Enterprises were engaged in parallel banking. It is further stated that Nadeem Enterprises derived unlawful benefit from the public amount and then failed to repay the same and caused loss to the public exchequer and the said amount is still recoverable from Nadeem Enterprises. It is quite strange to note that despite clear statement in which the complainant highlighted the name of Nadeem Enterprises, the Reference filed by NAB does not refer to anything in relation to the allegation against Nadeem Enterprises. The ADPG NAB also failed to controvert as to what action has been taken against "Nadeem Enterprises". Even paragraph 11 of the Reference is completely silent where the NAB has fixed joint liability of misappropriated/embezzled amount. Allauddin in his 161, Cr.P.C. Statement also talked about Waqas Ahmed Khan and his changed standard of living beyond his means. It is further stated that Waqas Ahmed Khan used to call himself nephew of petitioner but he was made In charge by Muzaffar Ali Zuberi for all AFU Booth. He was also shown various vouchers on which he recognized the handwriting of Waqas Ahmed Khan including debit and credit vouchers and pink sheets. Abu Sufyan in his statement also discussed living standard of Waqas Ahmed Khan posted at AFU Booth by the Ex-Branch Manager Nafees Ahmed Khan. He further stated that few persons were working on daily wages including Waqas Ahmed Khan who were deployed at AFU Booth by Muzaffar Ali however, no record of these persons is available in NBP.
After considering the aforesaid statements as well as the arguments of learned counsel we are of the firm view that in order to thrash out the liability and the role of each individual accused recording of evidence is necessary and at this stage it can be safely concluded on the basis of available record that the role of present accused requires further inquiry.
7. 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 pre-supposes the tentative assessment which may create doubt with respect to the involvement of accused in the crime. It is well settled that deeper appreciation of evidence is not permissible at bail stage simultaneously it is also well settled that object of trial is to make an accused to face the trial and not to punish an under trial prisoner. The basic idea is to enable the accused to answer criminal prosecution against him rather than to rot him behind the bars. Accused is entitled to expeditious access to justice, which includes a right to fair an expeditious trial without any unreasonable and inordinate delay. The intention of law is that the criminal case must be disposed of without unnecessary delay. It is not difficult to comprehend that inordinate delay in imparting justice is likely to cause erosion of public confidence in the judicial system on one hand and on the other hand it is bound to create a sense of helplessness, despair feeling of frustration and anguish apart from adding to their woes and miseries. Reference can be made to orders authored by one of us (Muhammad Ali Mazhar, J.) in the case of Ali Anwar Risk, Abdul Jabbar, Syed Mansoor All and Sardar Amin Farooqui reported in 2014 PCr.LJ 186, 2015 YLR 216, 2015 YLR 108 and PLJ 2014 Karachi 268.
8. Under section 16 of the N.A.O., 1999 it is clearly provided that notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force an accused shall be prosecuted for an offence under this Ordinance in the court and the case shall be heard from day to day and shall be disposed of within thirty days. We have already observed that the petitioner was arrested in the month of June, 2014 while the charge was framed in the month of October, 2014 and examination-in-chief of only one witness has been recorded so far which negates the spirit of section 16 of N.A.O., 1999. The learned ADPG NAB neither controverted this position nor did he explain the reasons of delay nor attributed any cause of delay to the petitioner or his counsel. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Muhammad Nadeem Anwar v. NAB reported in PLD 2008 SC 645 held as under:-- "National Accountability Ordinance, 1999 was promulgated in order to provide effective measures for detection, investigation, prosecution and speedy disposal of cases involving corruption, corrupt practices, misuse and abuse of power or authority, misappropriation of property, taking kick backs, commissions and for matters connected and ancillary or incidental thereto. Object of National Accountability Ordinance, 1999, in its preamble, is to provide expeditious trial of scheduled offences within the shortest possible time. Accused was entitled to expeditious and inexpensive access to justice, which included a right to fair and speedy trial in transparent manner without any unreasonable delay. Such intention had been re-assured in section 16 of National Accountability Ordinance, 1999, laying down criteria for day to day trial and its conclusion within thirty days. Such object did not appear likely to be achieved anywhere in the near future and would not constitute a bar for grant of bail to accused. Truth or otherwise of charges levelled against accused could only be determined at the conclusion of trial after taking into consideration the evidence adduced by both the parties. Supreme Court converted petition for leave to appeal into appeal as accused were entitled to grant of bail pending conclusion of trial."
In the case of Muhammad Jahangir Badar v. NAB, reported in PLD 2003 SC 525, the apex court held as under:-- "7. There is no cavil with the proposition that the State machinery has a right to arrest the culprits and put them to trial for the purpose of establishing guilt against them but it has not been bestowed with an authority to play with the liberty and life of an accused under detention because no one can be allowed to remain in custody for an indefinite period without trial as it is fundamental right of an accused that his case should be concluded as early as could be possible particularly in those cases where law has prescribed a period for the completion of the trial. As in the instant case under section 16(a) of the Ordinance the court is bound to dispose of the case within 30 days. It may be noted that inordinate delay in the prosecution case if not explained, can be considered a ground for bailing out an accused person depending on the nature and circumstances on account of which delay has been caused as has been held in the case of Riasat All v. Ghulam Muhammad and State (PLD 1968 SC 353)."
9. As a result of above discussion, the petitioner (Shahid Hussain) is granted bail in NAB Reference No,13 of 2014 subject to furnishing D solvent surety in the sum of Rs,10,00,000 (Rupees ten hundred thousand only) with P.R. Bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Nazir of this court. NAB may also approach to the Ministry of Interior, Government of Pakistan for placing his name on Exit Control List. The petitioner Shahid Hussain shall also surrender his original valid passport in the trial Court. The above findings are tentative in nature and shall not prejudice the case of either party.
The petition is disposed of.