GHULAM QADIR LEGHARI, J.---Through instant petition, petitioner has sought his release on bail as he is behind bars since his arrest by the respondents Nos.3 and 4 in exercise, of power purportedly conferred under sections 18(e) and 24(a) of the National Accountability Ordinance, 1999 on the allegation of embezzlement of Government funds while working as "District Accounts Officer"
District Naushehro Feroze during the period from January 2013 to August 2015. After arrest of the petitioner, the respondents Nos.3 and 4 obtained remand from Accountability Court at Sukkur from time to time and have completed the inquiry and submit that petitioner is no more required for such purpose.
2. Mr. Fiaz H.Shah learned counsel for applicant/petitioner argued that petitioner is innocent and has been falsely implicated by the respondents with ulterior motives without providing any sort of information about the allegation, whereas, petitioner was ever served with any notice nor any opportunity for submitting any rebuttal of allegations has ever been afforded by the respondents.
He further argued that the allegation against the petitioner/accused is that he had prepared forged bills regarding payment of pension amount in the name of fake pensioners but the Investigating Officer has not collected the copies of fake bills allegedly prepared by the petitioner.
He further argued that even Investigating Officer has not examined any pensioner in whose name the amount has been embezzled or misappropriated by the petitioner. He further argued that it is yet to be determined whether amount of Sindh Government or National Bank has been misappropriated by the petitioner hence the case against the applicant/ petitioner requires further enquiry. He also argued that the petitioner is in Jail custody and reference has not been filed so far, before the trial Court and accused is no more required for further investigation of the case by NAB authorities, petitioner therefore prayed that he may be released on bail. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on the case of Hassan Jameel Ansari and another v. National Accountability Bureau (NAB) and another (2012 YLR 2809), Nadeem Majeed v. The State (2007 SCMR 1958), Naseem Abdul Sattar and 6 others v. Federation of Pakistan and 4 others (PLD 2013 Sindh 357) and Abdul Aziz Memon and others v. The State and others (PLD 2013 Supreme Court 594).
3. Conversely, Mr. Muhammad Zubair Malik Special Prosecutor NAB while opposing the bail plea, has argued that since there is allegation against the petitioner that he had misappropriated amount and prepared bill in the name of fake pensioners of the different departments. He further argued that petitioner had misused his official powers and is involved in the embezzlement of amount and caused financial loss to the National exchequer, therefore, he is not entitled for concession of bail. He has relied upon case of Ghulam Haider Jamro and another v. Chairman: NAB (2007 YLR 541), Mrs. Riaz Qayyu m v. The State and another (2004 SCMR 1889) and Dr. Mirza Raza Ali v. The State through Chairman National Accountability Bureau (2007 PCr.LJ 1088).
4. We have heard learned counsel for petitioner and Special Prosecutor NAB and also given due consideration to the submissions advanced by them, and have also perused the case file. The allegation as per prosecution against the petitioner is that he has misused his official powers, prepared fake bills in the name of fake pensioners and deprived the National exchequer of huge funds with the collusion of Manager of National Bank of Pakistan, Bhirya City branch and thereafter the said amount was transferred in another fake account and then the said .Amount was got encashed. The Investigating Office of NAB authority, has not recovered the copies of alleged fake bills prepared by petitioner. He has neither collected evidence with regard that embezzled amount was found available in the account of petitioner or in the account of his family member, nor there is any evidence to show that petitioner was passing his life beyond his source of income and he was beneficiary and no role has been assigned to the petitioner with regard to the alleged offence of embezzlement of the amount. It is well settled law that while deciding bail application only tentative assessm ent is to be made and it is to be seen whether prima facie there exist any reasonable grounds against the petitioner to 'connect him with alleged offence which may fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C. Or otherwise. It is for the prosecution to prove there are reasonable grounds to believe that petitioner has committed the crime, in other words it can be siid that liberty of person is prime consideration as envisaged by laws, whereas, subsection
(1) of section 497, Cr.P.C, prohibits the release, of accused in certain conditions, such conditions must be proved by prosecution, else every citizen has right of liberty and can not be put in jail without reasonable grounds.
5. On perusal of the record it is also noticed that no material whatsoever has been produced or referred by the prosecution, which may suggest that the present applicant was somehow beneficiary of the alleged misappropriated amount or had abetted in the crime with the other co- accused persons towards commission of alleged offence of misappropriation of public funds, fraud, cheating or money laundering etc. Such fact was also candidly conceded by the Investigating Officer present in Court, that insofaras the present applicant is concerned, neither he is direct beneficiary, of alleged transaction(s) nor prosecution has been able to trace out any account in his name in which any amount alleged to have been embezzled was credited. The entire case of prosecution revolves around documentary evidence, which is already in their possession, whereas the present applicant is no more required for investigation, and for the sake of repetition we may observe that no material has been shown to us so as to establish that the present applicant is in fact real beneficiary of the alleged crime or has made unlawful personal gains out of the alleged embezzled money, whereas the other co-accused has already been admitted to bail. Moreover, the, authorities relied upon by the Special Prosecutor NAB are quite distinguishable and has no relevancy with the facts and circumstances of the present case/ matter reliance is placed on the case of Hassan Jameel Ansari and another v. National Accountability Bureau (NAB) and another (2012 YLR 2809).
6. Consequently, in view of above facts and circumstances, the case against the petitioner requires for further enquiry who was granted bail in the sum of Rs, 10,00,000/- (One million) and P.R bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of Additional Registrar of this Court by short order passed on 20.1.2016, and these are the reasons for the same. However, petitioner has been directed to co- operate with the NAB authorities during investigation, and if reference is filed against the petitioner, he may attend the trial Court regularly.
Petition stands disposed of along with listed application.