ASIF SAEED KHAN KHOSA, CJ.--- Civil Petition No. 1917-L of 2018 Through this petition Imtiaz Haider petitioner has sought leave to appeal against the order dated 28.06.2018 passed by a learned Division Bench of the Lahore High Court, Lahore in Writ Petition No. 214616 of 2018 whereby post-arrest bail was refused to him in Reference No. 50 of 2018 presently being tried by the learned Judge, Accountability Court-V, Lahore.
2. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and going through the record we have observed that the petitioner was serving as the Chief Executive Officer of the Punjab Land Development Company in the year 2017 when he had allegedly signed a development agreement on 23.07.2017 with M/s. Lahore Casa Developers in relation to a project known as Ashiana-e-Iqbal in Lahore. It is alleged by the prosecution that at the time of signing of the said agreement the petitioner knew the fact that the percentage shareholding had already been changed by a Joint Venture and despite such knowledge he had gone ahead and had signed the development agreement. The record of the case shows that the petitioner had signed the development agreement on 23.07.2015 on the basis of a resolution of the Board of the Punjab Land Development Company dated 15.07.2015 through which resolution the petitioner was authorized to sign the proposed development agreement. It is not disputed that the development agreement signed by the petitioner has already been terminated. As regards knowledge regarding change of percentage of shareholding in the Joint Venture the petitioner had no role in such change of percentage of shareholding. After completion of the investigation a Reference has already been filed against the petitioner and some others and during the trial only nine prosecution witnesses have so far made their statements before the Accountability, Court and the remaining 77 prosecution witnesses are yet to appear before the trial Court. It is not disputed that the delay in conclusion of the petitioner's trial is not attributed to the petitioner. The petitioner is not the principal, accused person in the relevant Reference and the only allegation levelled against him is in respect of aiding and abetting his co-accused in committing some illegalities. The petitioner had been arrested in connection with this case way back on 09.03.2018 and ever since his trial has not made any significant progress. His physical custody is no longer required at this stage. For all these reasons the petitioner has succeeded in making out a case for his post-arrest bail. This petition is, therefore, converted into an appeal and the same is allowed and consequently Imtiaz Haider petitioner is admitted to bail in the above-mentioned Reference subject to furnishing bail bond in the sum of Rs. 1,000,000/- (Rupees one million only with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court.
Civil Miscellaneous Applications No. 115, 572, 498 & 2304 of 2019 and 7856 of 2018 in Civil Petition No. 3427 of 2018
3. These miscellaneous applications are allowed and the documents appended therewith are permitted to be brought on the record of the main petition. Disposed of.
Civil Petition No. 3427 of 2018
4. Through this petition Ali Sajjad Bhutta petitioner has sought leave to appeal against the order dated 28.06.2018 passed by a learned Division Bench of the Lahore High Court, Lahore in Writ Petition No. 186197 of 2018 whereby pre-arrest bail was refused to him in Reference No. 50 of 2018 presently pending before the learned Judge, Accountability Court-V, Lahore.,
5. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and going through the record it has straightaway been noticed by us that the allegation levelled against the petitioner is that he had submitted some false and fake documents of Lahore Casa Developers in the bidding process of the project known as Ashiana-e-Iqbal, Lahore but it has been admitted before us that at the relevant time the petitioner had no power to make the bidding documents himself and he had only presented the said documents on behalf of a Joint Venture. It is not disputed that the petitioner has already joined the investigation and that the investigation in this case has already been finalized and a Reference has been filed before an Accountability Court which is already seized of the petitioner's trial. It is also not denied that after submission of the Reference and during the trial the petitioner has not absented himself from the trial. Court and that he has not been attributed any delay in the trial. Upon our query we have been informed that the petitioner's arrest is required at this stage so as to recover some documents from his custody but the investigating officer present before the Court has not been able to satisfy us as to which documents are to be recovered from the petitioner's custody at such a late stage. It is not denied that the bidding documents submitted by the petitioner on behalf of the Joint Venture are already a part of the record of the case. The petitioner had remained on ad-interim pre-arrest bail before the High Court and he has also remained on ad-interim pre-arrest bail before this Court since 16.10.2018 and no allegation has been levelled before us regarding any misuse or abuse of the concession of bail by the petitioner. The intended arrest of the petitioner at such a stage may smack of bad faith.
6. For what has been discussed above this petition is converted into an appeal and the same is allowed and consequently the ad-interim pre-arrest bail already allowed by this Court to Ali Sajjad Bhutta petitioner/appellant on 16.10.2018 is hereby confirmed on the same terms.
Civil Miscellaneous Application No. 7824/2018 in Civil Petition No. 3427 of 2018
7. As the main petition has been converted into an appeal and the same has been allowed, therefore, this miscellaneous application seeking interim relief has lost its relevance. Disposed of.
Civil Miscellaneous Application No. 60 & 1713 of 2019 and 9487 of 2018 in Civil Petition No. 3473 of 2018
8. These miscellaneous applications are allowed and the documents appended therewith are permitted to be brought on the record of the main petition. Disposed of.
Civil Petition No. 3473 of 2018
9. Through this petition Bilal Kidwai petitioner has sought leave to appeal against the order dated 28.06.2018 passed by a learned Division Bench of the Lahore High Court, Lahore in Writ Petition No. 215304 of 2018 whereby post-arrest bail was refused to him in Reference No. 50 of 2018 presently being tried by the learned Judge, Accountability Court-V, Lahore.
10. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and going through the record we have observed that according to the prosecution the petitioner had prepared some feasibility studies and had also prepared a bidding document which were prepared in violation of the Punjab Public Private Partnership Act, 2014. After going through the relevant record it has tentatively been found by us that the petitioner had prepared the relevant documents when he was directed to do so and the documents prepared by him were merely proposals for consideration of the Board of Punjab Land Development Company. The petitioner was simply a Project Coordinator as far as the Ashiana-e-Iqbal Project was concerned and he was not concerned with any particular party being offered the said project for its execution. Apparently the petitioner was only involved in the conceptual stage of the project whereafter he was to coordinate the execution of that project and he had not prepared any document which was actually used for the purpose of the said project: We have been informed that the petitioner had been arrested in connection with this case way back on 09.03.2018, i.e. about one year and three quarters ago and, during the interregnum the investigation of this case has already been finalized and a Challan has been submitted before the trial Court and some progress has already been made during the trial. However, the progress made in the trial has been found by us to be minimal as out of 86 prosecution witnesses to be produced before the trial Court the statements of only nine prosecution witnesses have been recorded so far. The petitioner is not the principal accused person in this case and the only allegation levelled against him is in respect of aiding and abetting his co-accused. It is not denied that the petitioner had not received any financial advantage or gain from the act performed by him in making of the relevant proposals. Physical custody of the petitioner is no longer required at this stage for the purposes of investigation. For all these reasons we find the prolonged and continued incarceration of the petitioner to be unconscionable. This petition is, therefore, converted into an appeal and the same is allowed and resultantly Bilal Kidwai petitioner is admitted to bail in the above-mentioned Reference subject to furnishing bail bond in the sum of Rs. 1,000,000/- (Rupees one million only) with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court.
Civil Miscellaneous Application No. 2233 of .2019. in Civil Petition No. 2109-L of 2018
11. This miscellaneous application is allowed and the document appended with this miscellaneous application is permitted to be brought on the record of the main petition. Disposed of Civil Petition No. 2109-L of 2018
12. Through this petition Munir Zia petitioner has sought leave to appeal against the order dated 28.06.2018 passed by a learned Division Bench of the Lahore High Court, Lahore in Writ Petition No. 186197 of 2018 whereby pre-arrest bail was refused to him in Reference No. 50 of 2018 presently being tried by the learned Judge, Accountability Court-V, Lahore.
13. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and going through the record it has been noticed by us that according to the prosecution the petitioner was a Proprietor/Partner of Bismillah Engineering Services Company and he had made some misrepresentations in the bidding documents submitted by a Joint Venture in connection with a project called Ashiana-e-Iqbal. The record of the case, however, shows that no bidding document was submitted by the petitioner himself during the entire process. The petitioner had joined the investigation and upon completion of the investigation a Reference has already been filed before the trial Court and the trial in that connection is already in progress. Nothing had been recovered from the petitioner's custody during the investigation. The petitioner was never alleged to be in a position of authority and, hence, there is no allegation against him regarding misuse of authority. It is not denied that the petitioner had not received any advantage or gain. It is also not denied that the contract obtained in the matter by the Joint Venture already stands terminated and it had been terminated even prior to lodging of a complaint before the National Accountability Bureau in that regard. It is admitted at all hands that possession of the land was never delivered to the Joint Venture and without any progress on the ground the project had failed and was shelved. The petitioner had remained on ad-interim pre-arrest bail before the High Court and he is on ad- interim pre-arrest bail before this Court since 16.10.2018 and during all these periods he has never misused or abused the concession of bail. Upon our query the investigating officer present before the Court has not been able to satisfy us as to why the petitioner's arrest is required at such a late stage of the case., In this backdrop the intended arrest of the petitioner may smack of bad faith. For all these reasons this petition is converted into an appeal and the same is allowed and consequently the ad-interim pre-arrest bail already allowed by this Court to Munir Zia petitioner/appellant on 16.10.2018 is hereby confirmed on the same terms.
Civil Miscellaneous Applications No. 3920 4417 and 4407 of 2019 in Civil Petition No. 923 of 2019
14. These miscellaneous applications are allowed and the documents appended therewith are permitted to be brought on the record of the main petition. Disposed of.
Civil Petitions No. 923, 928 and 929 of 2019
15. After arguing the matter at some length the learned counsel for the petitioner does not press these petitions. He has, however, pointed out that some observations made in the impugned order passed by the High Court may have a tendency to prejudice the trial Court during the trial. It goes without saying that any observation made by a Court granting or refusing bail to an accused person in a criminal case is always to be treated as tentative in nature and the same is not to prejudice the investigating officer or the trial Court in any manner. With this observation these petitions are disposed of as having not been pressed.
Civil Petition No. 648-L of 2019
16. Upon reconsideration the learned counsel for the petitioner wishes to withdraw this petition. so as to advise the petitioner to approach the High Court again on two 'stated fresh grounds for bail, i.e. filing of a Reference against the petitioner and delay in conclusion of his trial. This petition is, therefore, disposed of as having been withdrawn.