1. NAZEER AHMED LANGOVE, aw -- Through this common order, we shall dispose of the Constitution Petitions No, 13, 69 of 2017 and 1203, 1210. 1212, 1213 and 1214 of 2016 having common question of facts and law.
2. 2.The facts of the above Constitutional petitions are that during the course of inquiry by the NAB Authority, Baluchistan related to record of Education Department and office of Accountant General of Baluchistan revealed that 125x mismatch names of teachers were forwarded to concerned officers of Education Department (Schools) in Quetta for provision of their appointment orders. On verification it was found that out of 125x teachers 104 appointments were "Bogus". On completion of investigation besides Reference No, 11 instant Peferences 9 and 10 of 2016 were also filed against the petitioners on the ground that after making investigation against each set of accused which revealed the following 7x teachers were appointed/adjusted by petitioner Abdul Karim Khiazai (C.P.
3. No, 1213/20-16).in connivance with Nizam-ud-Din (C.P. No, 1212/2016) and Ghufran Ahmed (C.P. No, 1214/2016).
4. (1)Sajjad Ahmed S/o Shah Dost, JVT (ii)Murad Bakhsh S/o Hazoor Bakhsh, JVT
(iii) Mangal Khan S/o Humbo Khan, JV (iv)Kabil Khan S/o Nokaf Khan, JVT (v)Ghulam Sarwar S/o Meer Muhammad, JVT (vi)Muhammad Ehtisham S/o Muhammad Asad JET (vii)Illahi Bakhsh S/O Nazar Ali, JVT 3.The learned counsel for the petitioners contended that involvement of the petitioners in the instant Reference is based on ma/a fide and ulterior motives as they had already been participated in the inquiry, investigation and on the same allegation almost petitioners' bail before arrest was confirmed by this Court and in C.P. No, 3/2016 and others vide judgment dated 30.12.2016. Petitioner Abdul Karim (C.P. - No, 1213/2016) contended that on the same allegation after inquiry and investigation Reference No, 10 of 2015 was filed against officers of the Education Department but he was found innocent. He further submitted that he had been retired in March, 2011 and despite his innocence in the previous two References he was again called to face the same allegation in the instant Reference which according to him smacks mala fide on the part of the respondent. The learned counsel for the petitioner Ghufran Ahmed (C.P. No, 1214/2016) contended that the only allegation against the petitioner is that he initiated the salaries of bogus teachers on the basis of fake appointment orders, whereas petitioner Ghufran at the relevant time was holding the post of Ex-Deputy District Officer Education (Male), Zarghoon Town, Quetta had neither drawing and disbursement (DDO's) powers nor any reference of such powers has been given in the impugned Reference. The learned counsel for the petitioner Abbas Raza, Ahsan Ullah and Syed Wajahat Hussain contended that salaries of teachers were activated by the officials of Accounts Officers. Office of Accountant General, Baluchistan as per rules and regulation and in the previous Reference No, 11 on the same allegation their pre-arrest bail have been confirmed in C.Ps.
5. No, 17 and 18 of 2016 respectively, therefore, in the instant Reference their involvement reflect mala fide. The petitioners had extended full cooperation and provided all the relevant documents during inquiry and investigation. therefore, they are entitled for confirmation of their bail before arrest and petitioners (C.Ps. No, 13 and 69 of 2017) are entitled for grant of post-arrest bail.
6. On the other hand DPG and Special Prosecutor, NAB strenuously opposed the Constitutional petitions by arguing that the grant of pre-arrest bail is barred under NAB Ordinance, 1997. It was maintained that the petitioners with connivance of each other initially succeeded in appointing bogus teachers and thereafter, managed to activate their salary in utter violation and disregard of procedures, primary duties as per job description, rules and regulations. In this regard inquiry was conducted by the NAB authority during course whereof it revealed that the petitioners by misusing their authority/office have caused a loss of Rs, 43,85,073/-(Rupees forty-three lacs eighty-five thousand and seventy-three only) as such they exposed themselves to be arrested and tried.
7. 4.We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and tentatively perused the record. As regards the jurisdiction of the High Court regarding grant of pre-arrest bail in National Accountability Bureau Ordinance, 1999 it has been held in the case titled as The State Vs. Haji Kabeer Khan (PLD 2005 SC 364): <i>"The High Court would exercise its powers in rare and exceptional circumstances for valid reasons. In Khan Asfand Yar Wali Vs. Federation of Pakistan through Cabinet Division (PLD 2001 SC 607). The Honorable Supreme Court of Pakistan has devised a strategy for granting bail to such accused persons through Constitutional Jurisdiction of the High Court. Provided their cases are arguable for the purpose of grant of bail." </i> In the instant case the allegation against Abdul Karim Khiazai is that he in connivance with petitioners Nizam-udDin and Ghufran Ahmed appointed 7 bogus teachers in District Quetta and petitioners AbduI Raza, Ehsan Ullah and Syed Wajahat Hussain in violation of procedure, activated salaries of alleged bogus teachers. The petitioner Abdul Karim has taken plea that he had been retired in March, 2011 and during the period of alleged appointment he was out of country. The question related to petitioner Ghufran Ahmed as to whether he at the relevant time being Ex- Deputy District Officer Education (Male), Zarghoon Town, Quetta had DDO's Powers to initiate the salaries of impugned bogus teachers or as to whether official/officer of office of Accountant General, Baluchistan, Quetta acted in violation of any law, rule or regulation and bringing their case under NAB Ordinance are the exceptional circumstances which are yet to be decided by the Trial Court. The Reference in question had already been submitted before the Trial Court and petitioners are facing their trial. This Court, in C.P. Nos, 3. 17, 18 and 21 of 2016 related to Reference No, 11 on almost same allegations confirmed bail before arrest of the above-referred petitioners vide judgment dated 30.12.2016, therefore, a case for confirmation of bail before arrest and post arrest is made out in favor of the petitioners.
5. In view of the above vide short orders dated 6.3.2017, Constitution Petitions No, 13, 69 of 2017 and 1203, 1210, 1212, 1213 and 1214 of 2016 were allowed and petitioners' pre-arrest bail was confirmed and petitioners in Constitution Petitions No, 13 and 69 of 2017 were granted pre-arrest bail. These are the reasons of short orders of even date i,e, 6.3.2017.