SALAHUDDIN PANHWAR, J.---Through instant petition, petitioners seek pre-arrest bail in Reference No.74/2007 pending before Accountability Judge, (NAB), Karachi.
2. Precisely, relevant facts are that enquiry was conducted into complaint No.198/2007 of ACE, Karachi with the allegation that land grabbers Muhammad Saeed, Nooruddin and others with the active connivance of Revenue staff, Gulshan Town, Karachi, managed and kept fake/false entries in the old record of rights i.e. Deh Form Register VII, Deh Safora, Gulshan Town, Karachi. As a result, different properties of the government were transferred through mutation to different persons illegally and after manipulation.
Consequently such enquiry was converted in the FIR No.67/2007 under sections 161/ 217/420/468/471/109/34, P.P.C. Read with section 5 subsection (2) of the Act II of 1947, at ACE, Karachi. Subsequently, such case was transferred, to the NAB Court, under section 16-A' of the National Accountability Ordinance, 1999 and thus converted into Reference No.74/2007.
3. It is further contended that during submission of interim charge sheet of said crime and while submitting Reference No.74/2007 before .Accountability Court-V, Sindh at Karachi, present petitioners were not arraigned but through supplementary Reference No.74/2007 dated 29.02.2009 they were joined as an accused. It is also maintained that during pendency of reference, main accused Zulfiqar Ali Abbasi was granted pre-arrest bail by this Court by order dated 18.02.2007.
Thereafter co-accused Muhammad Zafar Baloch was granted pre-arrest bail through order dated 25.08.2008. Subsequently accused Badarul-Abidin, Fahimuddin, Mst. Madiha have been granted pre-arrest bail vide order dated 13.12.2013 by this court.
4. Record reflects that interim pre-arrest bail was granted to the petitioners on 19.03.2009 and it has further surfaced that during pendency of this petition, petitioner No.2 Muhammad Hanif passed away, thus to his extent bail was ordered to be infructuous (vide order dated 20.03.2012).
5. Conversely, learned counsel for respondent KASB Bank contends that issue between the petitioners and instant Bank is resolved therefore he has no objection if their pre-arrest bail is confirmed.
6. On the other hand, learned Special Prosecutor NAB has raised formal objection. However he is unable to controvert that co- accused involved in the same reference have been granted bail by this Court by various orders.
7. Heard counsel, perused the record.
8. While scanning of material available on record it is manifest that co-accused who were initially nominated in FIR have been granted bail by this Court through Constitution Petition No.D-2483/ 2007. It would be conducive to refer paragraph 11 of said order which is as under:-- "11. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record as well as the para wise comments filed by NAB. It is prima-facie established, that the petitioner, prior to making entries in the register, had sent the letters for verification, and only after verification, he had made the subject entries, which fact is also supported by the letters annexed with the Rejoinder as Annexures "A", "B" "C". It is also strange that the persons with specific role regarding verification of impugned documents have been exonerated, which is discrimination on the part of the prosecution."
9. Present petitioners are on bail since 2009 and it is a matter of record that they are attending the trial Court regularly and Prosecution has not claimed, at any stage, that they have attempted to mis-use the concession of bail. Moreover, it is surfaced that petitioners have settled their dispute with KASB Bank, thus aggrieved party i.e. KASB Bank has recorded its no objection to their pre-arrest bail. Since co-accused on almost similar grounds have been grantedbail by this Court therefore judicial propriety demands that benefit of rule of consistency should be given to petitioners as of right. Above all the petitioners have been regularly attending the court where guilt of the petitioners is yet to be determined and petitioners can well be given their due at the end of the trial, if is found so deserving. Since the basic principle of Criminal Administration of Justice is not to keep one behind the bars but to give due for the offence.
10. Consequently interim pre-arrest bail granted in favour of petitioners is hereby confirmed on same terms and conditions.