ALI BAIG, J.---Through the instant writ petition filed under Article 71(2) of Gilgit Baltistan (Empowerment and Self Governance) Order, 2009 read with enabling Articles of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, the petitioner accused namely Zameer Abbas seeks post arrest ball in reference/offence under sections 9(A) (I)(II)(IV) and (VI) of NAB Ordinance, 1999.
2. Briefly allegations against the present petitioner/accused as narrated in the reference are that the present petitioner/ accused was performing his duties as Deputy Director Excise and Taxation Gilgit Baltistan and he was one of the member of the committee which awarded contract to the concerned contractor for supply of number plates of vehicles and he was also subscriber of minutes of meeting vide which contract was awarded to the coaccused/contractor who was not eligible. The contract in question was awarded to the contractor without receiving call deposit and security guarantee in favour of the State which was mandatory requirement and due to negligence of the present petitioner/accused a loss of rupees 6 crore has been caused to the government exchequer. Subsequently an inquiry committee was constituted and in its findings the said committee has found that the present petitioner/ accused and his co-accused are responsible for embezzlement and misappropriation of government fund/ money as the contractor who was awarded contract had supplied substandard number plates. The supply order was also issued to the contactor by the present petitioner/ accused. It has also been alleged that some embezzled/misappropriated amount was also recovered from the account of the present petitioner/accused.
3. It is pertinent to mention here that initially the case against the present petitioner and his co- accused was registered by FIA Gilgit under relevant provisions of law and later on the case was transferred to NAB By FIA.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that under section 16(a) National Accountability Bureau Ordinance .1999 an accused shall be prosecuted for an offence under this Ordinance in court and case shall be heard day by day and shall be disposed of within thirty days.
The learned counsel for the petitioner further argued that case/reference against the petitioner was filed in the Accountability Court Gilgit Baltistan on 03-3-2016 but despite lapse of more than two years the learned trial court has failed to decide/conclude the case of the present petitioner in violation of the aforesaid mandatory provisions, hence the petitioner/accused is entitled for concession of bail. The learned counsel for the petitioner/accused further argued that statement of co-accused of the present petitioner namely Mir Intikhab-ul-Haq under section 164, Cr.P.C. has been recorded in absence of the present petitioner' and his counsel and in his confessional statement, the above named co-accused has implicated the present petitioner, hence case of the petitioner requires further inquiry.
5. On the other hand the learned Special Prosecutor NAB vehemently opposed this petition by contending that the aforesaid grounds were agitated by the petitioner in his pervious bail/ writ petition which was allowed by this court, and bail order of this court was challenged by NAB . authorities/respondents herein in the Hon'ble Supreme Appellate Court through a Criminal Appeal No,22/16 which was allowed by the Hon'ble Supreme Appellate Court vide judgment dated 25-9- 2017. Consequently the bail granted to the present petitioner by this court was cancelled, hence this petition on the same grounds are not maintainable.
6. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and with their assistance perused the record.
7. From perusal of record it transpires that earlier the petitioner had filed a writ petition in this court for grant of bail on the ground of delay in disposal of his case with in stipulated time i,e, thirty days.
The division bench of this court after hearing arguments on behalf of the petitioner and State had allowed the aforesaid writ petition of the present petitioner and bail was granted in favour of the present petitioner on the ground of delay in conclusion of trial of case of the petitioner/accused vide judgment dated 12-6-2017.
8. The National Accountability Bureau had challenged the aforesaid judgment of the division bench of this court in the Hon'ble Supreme Appellate Court through Criminal Appeal 22/16 and the Hon'ble Supreme Appellate Court after hearing arguments on behalf of both parties has allowed the appeal of the present respondents and consequently the bail granted to the present petitioner by the division bench of this court was set aside/cancelled vide judgment 25-9-2017 by the Hon'ble Apex Court.
9. It is astonishing to observe that the petitioner has filed the instant bail/writ petition for grant of post arrest bail on the ground of delay .in conclusion of trial of case of the petitioner within 3o days which was already taken in his pervious writ petition and petitioner cannot repeat the same in fresh bail petition. However, it is settled law the accused can file fresh bail petition on fresh grounds but in the instant case no fresh grounds are available to the petitioner.
10.For the foregoing reasons, we have to come to the conclusion that the petitioner/accused has failed to make out a case for grant of bail. Accordingly this writ petition being meritless is hereby dismissed.
11.Before parting with this judgment it is observed that the case of the petitioner is lingering on since 03-3-2016, therefore the learned trial court is directed to hear the case on day to day basis without allowing unnecessary adjournments and to complete the trial and decide the case of the petitioner/accused within two months of the date of passing of this judgment failing which the petitioner will be at liberty to file fresh bail petition in this Court. The office shall immediately send copy of this judgment to National Accountability Court Gilgit Baltistan for compliance. File.