MUHAMMAD KARIM KHAN AGHA, J.---The petitioner Mr. Sharjeel Inam Memo n has moved this petition for post arrest bail before this court in respect of National Accountability Bureau Reference 50/2016 State v. Sharjeel Inam Memon and others which is proceeding before Accountability Court No.1 in Karachi.
2. Earlier this court vide consolidated Order dated 25-10-2017 had recalled the ad interim pre arrest bail granted to the petitioner and others. On recalling of such bail the petitioner was taken into custody on 25-10-2017. This court also dismissed his petition for post arrest bail on merits vide order dated 02-03-2018. The petitioner then approached the Supreme Court against the order of this court but withdrew the same giving him the ability to again approach this court if a fresh ground was made out. This court also dismissed the petitioner's petition for bail on medical grounds which was upheld by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Thus, this is the second petition for post arrest bail on merits and the first on account of delay in concluding the petitioner's trial before this court.
3. The case in essence involves a misuse of authority by the official accused of the Ministry of Information Government of Sindh (including the petitioner) which favored beneficiary accuse d (mainly advertising agencies) which enabled them to make hefty unjustified profits by receiving exorbitant advertising rates for placing adverts with T.V. channels as approved by the petitioner and some of the other official co-accused which caused a loss to the Government of Sindh (GOS).
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner raised two new grounds. Firstly , that the rates were not exorbitant as they were lower than the rates paid by the Federal Government to advertising companies at the time of the reference and that the Federal Government had recently admitted in a letter dated 20-12-2018 from the Government of Pakistan, Ministry of Information, Broadcasting National History and Literary heritage to Mr. Shakeel Masood Hussain Chairman Pakistan Broadcasting Association that there was no regularization and standardization of the rates charged by advertising companies which led to them charging exorbitant and unjustified rates. Secondly , on hardship grounds since the petitioner had been in custody for over 20 months and the conclusion of the trial was not in sight despite both the Supreme Court and this court giving directions to complete the trial within a given period of time which had not been done and that the petitioner had not personally benefited in any way financially .
With respect to the ground of delay he contended that his submissions came within ground 23 (f) of the case of Tallat Ishaq v . NAB (PLD 2019 SC 1 12) and Syed Manzoor Abbass v . NAB (2019 MLD 581 )
5. Learned counsel for the NAB contended that the petitioner had given his approval to the advertising agencies to charge exorbitant rates for the advertisements for which payment he approved and that the advertising agencies had made unlawful windfall profits on account of such exorbitant rates which was a misuse of authority by the petitioner which had benefited the advertising agencies. That the petitioner had compounded the loss caused to the Government of Sindh as he had failed to check the aspects of bulk discount and credit notes which the advertising agencies were deducting from the rates actually paid and were not passing on the same to the Government of Sindh. He conceded however that he had not carried out any comparative analysis in any other province or with the Federation at the time when the reference was filed to show that the rates so charged by the advertising agencies to the Government of Sindh and as approved by the petitioner were in fact exorb itant and that they far exceeded those paid in other provinces or by the Federation and that there was no evidence that the petitioner personally gained financially from the scam. He also submitted that no delay had been caused by either side in the completion of the trial however the delay in concluding the trial was not so long as would amount to the grant of bail on the grounds of hardship as in his view the trial could be completed within 6 months and submitted that the appropriate course was for this court to give a further direction to complete the trial within 6 months and as such the post arrest Mil petition of the petitioner should be dismissed. In support of his contentions in terms of not granting bail on hardship grounds he also placed reliance on the case of Tallat lshaq (Supra)
6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered the record and the case law referred to with their able assistance.
7. Turning to the first point it appears that learned counsel for the petitioner has raised a new ground which was not previously available to him through a letter dated 20-12-2018 from the Government of Pakistan, Ministry of Information, Broadcasting National History and Literary heritage to Mr. Shake el Masood Hussain Chairman Pakistan Broadcasting Association which is set out below for ease of reference.
"GOVERNMENT OF P AKIST AN MINISTR Y OF INFORMA TION, BROADCASTING NATIONAL HIST ORY AND LITERAR Y HERIT AGE (Information and Broadcasting Division)
ISLAMABAD.
No.2 (2)/2018-secy Islamabad: December 20, 2018 "Mr. Shakeel Masud Hussain Chairman, Pakistan Broadcasting Association 177/2, 1st floor , I.E.P . Building Liaquat Barracks, Shahrah-e-Faisal, Karachi.
Subject: RATES FOR ELECTRONIC MEDIA On numerous occasions, both formally and informally , this Ministry has raised its concern over the unfair and exorbitant rates being charged by Private Television .Channels for airing government/public sector advertisements/ campaigns.
It would be pertinent to mention here that the Finance Division has raised serious objections on the rates being charged by the private channels.
Despite repeated reminders, meetings and discussions no concrete movement has been made in the matter which is adversely impacting the media industry .
The present government intends to support the electronic media industry and initiate electronic media campaigns.
This cannot be done on existing rates.
In view of the above, the government after due deliberation and considering the commercial rates charged by Private Television Channels has evaluated the new rates which are fair and reasonable for release of public sector advertisement / campaigns in public interest.
We are also intimating the concerned channels about the new rates separately which are enclosed.
These rates will be effective, if we do not hear any further , with effect from December 27, 2018 and valid for all Federal and Provincial Governments / Autonomous Bodies / Public Sector Organizations (bold added).
Sd/- Shafqat Jalil Secretary"
RATES FOR ELECTRONIC MEDIA S.No. T.V.
CHANNELSDURATIONPRESENT RATES NEW RATES (PER MINT .)
1 Aaj News 60 Sec 175,000 45000 2 Abb Tak 60 Sec 245,000 35,000 3.Apna TV 60 Sec 210,000 25,000 5 ARY News 60 Sec 245,000 91,000 5Business Plus60 Sec 182,000 12,000 6 Capital TV 60 Sec 210,000 25,000 7 Channel-2460 Sec 175,000 30,000 8 Channel-5 60 Sec 175,000 5,000 9 City-24 60 Sec 210,000 15,000 10Dawn News 60 Sec 210,000 55,000 1IDin News 60 Sec 210,000 10,000 12Dunya News 60 Sec 273,000 75,000 13Express News60 Sec 245,000 65,000 14Geo News 60 Sec 290,000 89,000 15GNN 60'Sec 122,500 10,000 16K-2 60 Sec 140,000 6,000 17K-21 60 Sec 210,000 10,000 18Khyber News 60 Sec 210,000 15,000 19KTN News 60 Sec210,000 30,000 20Mashriq TV 60 Sec105,000 8,000 21New News 60 Sec210,000 15,000 22News One 60 Sec240,000 35,000 23Public TV 60 Sec-- 35,000 24Punjab TV 60 Sec105,000 10,000 25Royal News 60 Sec175,000 5,000 26Roze News 60 Sec245,000 5,000 27Sama TV 60 Sec245,000 85,000 28Sinclh TV 60 Sec210,000 12,000 29Such TV 60 Sec 147,000 10,000 30VSH 60 Sec 175,000 20,000 31Waseb TV 60 Sec190,000 10,000 327 News 60 Sec227,000 12,000 33Star Asia 60 Sec130,000 3,000 3492 News 60 Sec245,000 45,000 35Lahore News 60 Sec 210,000 15,000 36Hum News 60 Sec 245,000 45,000 Sd/- Shafqat Jalil Secretary Information and Broadcasting Government of Pakistan Islamabad."
8. The importance of this letter is that the Federal Government Ministry of Information, Broadcasting National History and Literary heritage has come to the conclusion that it has been paying exorbitant rates for its advertising and that there is now a need to regularize such rates at a fair and reasonable level. The table which accompanied this letter dated 20-12-2018 set out the existing rates which the Federal Government Ministry of Information, Broadcasting National History and Literary heritage is paying the advertising agencies and suggested new much lower rates which the Federal Government Ministry of Information, Broadcasting National History and Literary heritage considered to be fairer and more reasonable. Although these new rates as suggested by the Federal Government Ministry of Information, Broadcasting National History and Literary heritage have apparently not been approved/accepted as yet, so far as we are aware, by the Pakistan Broadcasting Association it shows that there is no fixed rates for advertising for the industry and that even the Federal Government has being paying what it regarded as exorbitant rates. The new rates were also to be appli cable to the Provincial Governments including that of Sindh.
9. This raises the issue as to what rates the Federal Government Ministry of Information, Broadcasting National History and Literary heritage has been paying the advertising agencies compare d to the Government of Sindh during the reference period as one of the main allegations against the petitioner is that he deliberately paid advertising agencies at exorbitant rates in order to benefit them which caused a loss to the Government of Sindh.
10. Thus, we set out below a table comparing the rates for advertising paid by the Federal Government and the Government of Sindh during the reference period.
S.No. T.V.
CHANNELDURATION RATES WHICH WERE FOLLOWED BY FEDERAL GOVT DURING THE REFERENCE PERIODRATES FOLLOWED IN THE INST ANT REFERENCE BY GOS
1. Aaj News 60 Sec. 175,000140,000
2. Abb Tak 60 Sec. 245,000 140,000
3. Apna TV 60 Sec. 210,000 140,000
4. ARY News 60 Sec. 245,000 140,000 5.Business Plus60 Sec. 182,00084,000
6. Capital TV 60 Sec. 210,000 157,500
7. Channel-5 60 Sec. 175,000105,000
8. Dawn News 60 Sec. 210,000 140,000
9. Din News 60 Sec. 210,000 70,000 10.Dunya News60 Sec. 245,000 140,000 11.Express News60 Sec. 245,000 140,000 12.Geo News 60 Sec. 290,500 182,000 13.Khyber News 60 Sec. 210,000 87,500 14.KTN News 60 Sec. 210,000 112,000 15.News One 60 Sec. 240,000 105,000 16.Punjab TV 60 Sec. 105,00052,500 17.Royal News 60 Sec. 175,00077,000 18.Roze News 60 Sec. 245,000 70,000 19.Sama TV 60 Sec. 245,000 175,000 20.Sindh TV 60 Sec. 210,000 70,000 21.Such TV 60 Sec. 147,000 70,000 22.VSH 60 Sec. 175,000 84,000 23.Waseb TV 60 Sec. 190,000 75,600 24.Star Asia 60 Sec. 130,000 52,000
11. As can be seen from this comparative analysis it appears that during the reference period the rates being paid by the Government of Sindh as authorised by the petitioner in this reference to advertising agencies who then engaged the concerned T.V channels are much lower in each case than that being paid by the Federal Government Ministry of Information, Broadcasting National History and Literary heritage. This therefore raises the issue whether the rates charged by the Government of Sindh in the reference were in fact exorbitant during the reference period as per market rates especially as the Federal Government was paying much more and that admittedly vide a letter dated 20-12-2018 from the Government of Pakistan Ministry of Information, Broadcasting National History and Literary heritage to Mr. Shakeel Masood Hussain Chairman Pakistan Broadcasting Association (as referred to earlier in this order) there was no regularization or standardization of the rates to be paid to the adverting agencies during the time when the reference was filed or even today .
12. Thus, keeping in view the above new ground we find that this case has now become one of further enquiry in terms of the rates paid by the Government of Sindh to the advertising agencies in terms of their "exorbitancy" and admit the petitioner to post arrest bail.
13. In addition we note that there has been considerable delay in concluding this reference which delay has not been caused by the petitioner or any one acting on his behalf. The petitioner has relied on the case of Tallat Ishaque (Supra) in this respect which is the latest 5 memb er Supreme Court Judgment on bail on hardship grounds in NAB cases since no statutory bail is available which after a careful and exhaustive analysis of earlier NAB hardship decisions by the Supreme Cour t set out at para 23 various principles governing the grant of bail in NAB cases on hardship grounds. In our view the case of Tallat Ishaque (Supra) has overall raised the bar for grant of bail in NAB cases on the grounds of hardship but has not totally excluded it as no one can be kept behind bars indefinitely especially as it is settled law that bail cannot be refused and used as a punishment keeping in view the golden principle of criminal law that an accused is innocent until proved guilty and that each case is unique and must be considered in the light of its own particular facts and circumstances.
14. The petitioner has in particular relied on the principle laid down in para 23(f) of Tallat Ishaque (Supra) case which is set out below for ease of reference.
"Para.23.The survey of the precedent cases detailed above and a caref ul reading of the judgments rendered or orders passed in those cases leads us to conclude as follows:-- a) ............................ b) ............................ c) .......................... d) .......................... e) .......................... f) Ordinarily bail is allowed to an accused person on the ground of delay only where the delay in the trial or the period of custody of the accused person is shocking, unconsciousable or inordinate and not otherwise. The primary consideration for grant of bail on the ground of such delay is undue hardship and more often than not prima facie merits of the case against the accused person are also looked into before admitting him to bail on the ground of delay" (bold added)
15. In this case the petitioner has been in custody for about, 20 months and the record reveals that no delay has been caused on his part. That in this 20 month period only 7 out of 52 prosecution witnesses have been examined and that there are still 45 PW's to be examined. That there are 17 accused in the reference each with a different lawyer and each with a separate right of cross examination of each witness. Although judges do not have a crystal ball to tell the future in our view it is quite apparent that even with the trial proceeding on a day to day basis which it has seen following directions given by this court this trial is unlikely to be completed in less than one more year especially since after the direction to hear the case on a day to day basis which was given by this court has almost expired and during this period of around 4 months only 3 or 4 further PW's have been examined.
16. The question therefore is whether we in all good conscience should give a further direction in which to complete the trial say within an additional period of 6 months?
17. In this respect we note that Civil Petition 1566/2018 in Sarang Latif (who is a co-accused in this reference) v.
Federation of Pakistan vide judgment dated 28-10-2018 (unreported) the Supreme Court when dismissing Mr. Latif's application for post arrest bail made the following observations and directions in terms of completing the trial at Para 4 which in relevant part reads as under: "Para 4 We can, however , not remain unmindful of the fact that the petitioner has remained incarcerated for a year and that such a prolonged trial contravenes the provisions of The National Accountability Ordinance, 1999 which envisaged expeditious trials, and even day to day proceedings. As the case of the prosecution is primarily based on documents and official record, we direct its expeditious disposal which should not be later than six months. The learned trial Judge shall also not grant unnecessary adjournments. The office is directed to send a copy of this order to the concerned Court for information and compliance." (Bold added)
18. This direction by the Supreme Court to complete the trial within 6 months has already expired on 22-04-2019.
19. In the case of Gulzar Ali and others (co accused in the same reference) v. State dated 06-3-2019 (unreported) where other co-accused in the same reference applied for post arrest bail while allowing bail to Gulzar Ali and whilst dismissing the petitions in respect of the other co-accused who had applied this court, being unaware of the above referred supreme court direction, gave the following direction at Para 20; "20. The trial court is directed to hold the trial on a day to day basis and not allow any adjournment on any flimsy ground (and in the case of an adjournmen t clearly write in the diary which defense counsel or, as the case may be, Special Prosecutor NAB is responsible for such adjournment and why the adjournm ent was granted) and complete the trial within 4 months of the date of this order . The office shall transmit a copy of this order to the concerned accountability court for compliance which shall submit a weekly progress repor t to the concerned High Court accountability court monitoring Judge through MIT II "
20. This direction will expire in about a week and yet conclusion of the trial is nowhere in sight despite the lapse of 20 months. For example, 42 PW's are yet to be examined by the prosecution, each PW will be subject to cross examination by 17 different defense counsel, each of the 17 accused will have to record their S.342, Cr.P.C. statements, may call DW's and each of the 17 accused along with the prosecution will have to submit their final arguments. Thus, realistically we do not consider that the trial can be completed in 6 months and probably not even within a year. Thus, we do not consider it appropriate to pass yet another direction (being the third in the case) to complete the trial within another 6 months (which directions in any event are not binding on the trial court being only administrative directions) as realistically the trial is not going to be completed within this period even if heard on a day to day basis as it currently is and thus giving such direction would not serve any useful purpose apart from keeping the petitioner in jail for a further period of 6 months.
21. If the maximum sentence which can be awarded by an accountability court on conviction in terms of imprisonment under the NAO is 14 years would it be appropriate or fair or justified to keep an accused being I bars for more than 3 years when his trial is nowhere near conclusion keeping in view that the accused is presumed to be innocent until proven guilty and neither he nor his counsel has been responsible for any delay , bail cannot be denied as a punishment and as was obse rved by the Supreme court in the case of Zaigham Ashraf v. The State (2016 SCMR 18) if an accused is ultimately acquitted he cannot recover this lost time spent in jail possibly away from his family including potentially small children or even receive any compensation or reparation? We are not convinced that it would be either just or fair. It needs to be carefully considered in our view whether such lengthy periods of incarceration during prolonged trials violates Article 10(A) of the Constitution which guarantee due process rights one of which in our view is the right to an expeditious trial which is underlined by the preamble and S.16(a) of the NAO . This is more so if the case is mainly based on documentary evidence and sufficient safe guards can be put in place to avoid the petitioner absconding and/or any potential interference with witnesses. We cannot in all good conscience close our eyes to such issues where a person's liberty is at stake for potentially long periods of time without him being convicted of any of fense.
22.In considering the ground of bail on hardship grounds we have also taken into account our findings on delay in the case of Syed Manzoor Abbas v. NAB (2019 MLD 581) at Para's 11 to 12 onwards and the callous attitude of the Federal Government with regard to those under trial prisoners who are incarcerated in NAB cases for years on end in never ending trials in not ensuring sufficient accountability courts to ensure the expeditious disposal of cases pending before accountability courts which are reproduced below for ease of reference:
11. We have also taken into consideration the fact that the State has little interest in expediting the trial of accused in NAB cases by creating more NAB courts so that cases could be heard more expeditiously . In the case of Chaudhry Mohammed Asharaf f v Federation of Pakistan in C.P. D-7083/2016 which concerned whether 5.16(a)
NAO was directory or mandatory in nature i.e. the obligation for NAB cases to proceed on a day to day basis and be completed within 30 days vide our order dated 14-12-2017 we noted that hardly any NAB cases were completed within this time frame contrary to the intent and spirit of the legislature and although we found that 5.16(a) was directory in nature as opposed to mandatory we held as under at Paras 29 to 32.
29. In making this finding we would like to emphasize that it in no way detracts from the NAB and the accountability courts obligation to complete the trial of the accused under the NAO as expeditiously as possible and that in appropriate cases of delay bail may be granted.
30. We would also observe that since hardly any NAB trial proceeds on a day to day basis or is completed within 30 days in order to give effect to the intent and spirit of the NAO which specifically provides for expeditious trials it is incumbent upon the Federal Government to establish sufficient accountability courts in each province to ensure that such NAB trials are completed within the shortest possible time rather than be left to drag on for years on end, which is very often the case in trials under the NAO, due to a lack of accountability courts and judges especially as statutory bail on the grounds of delay are not available in such cases.
31. We accept that such delay is caused by a number of factors such as the criminal justice system itself whereby if an absconder is later arrested the charge has to be reframed and all the eviden ce again recorded from scratch which leads to inordinate delay; the prosecution not producing PW's or documents in a timely manner and adding too many accused in the reference and too many PW's and documents which makes the trial almost unmanageable and unnecessarily long especially as each of the accused will have a separate right of cross examination of each PW through a different counsel. (In this respect in some cases under the NAO as many as 50 accused have been placed in the reference and the average appears to he at least 10 to 15) and the defense counsel seeking adjournments on account of seniors being busy before super ior courts, counsel on general adjournments, lawyers strikes, illness, deaths in the family , absence of accused etc. However , the accused should not be made to suffer and rot in jail for years on end due to such shortcomings/failures which are often not caused by him. Ultimately , it is the obligation of the State as envisa ged under the NAO to provide an expeditious trial to the accused.
32. As such the Federal Law Secretary is hereby directed to establish within 3 months of the date of this order three more fully functioning accountability courts in Karachi complete with office space, judges, all other ancillary staff and necessary equipment so that the back log of accountability cases in Sindh can be reduced and meaningful efforts made to complete such trials expeditiously so that accused do not languish in jails for years on end whic h was not contemplated under the NAO which provides for speedy trials".
12. Father than being sympathetic to the plight of the accused in NAB cases who are on occasion left to rot in jail for years on end due to the slow ness of trial and the lack of bail on the grounds of statutory delay the Federation moved the Supreme Court to suspend this court's direction in para 32 above to establish 3 more accountability courts in Karachi in order to speed up trials on the grounds that there was a meager pendency of NAB cases before the accountability courts in Karachi. Perh aps this observation was on account of a lack of understanding of NAB cases by the Federation where there are complex issues involved, countless accused (each of whom usually engage a separate counsel for cross examination of each witness), PW's, documents etc and the fact that the number of cases in each court has over the last number of years risen from approx. 20 to SO per court owing to NAB filing more references, in recent times and especially when accountability court V was shifted to Sukkur leaving only 4 accountability courts for the whole of Karachi. The Hon'ble Supreme Court suspended the above direction and asked for certain information to be provided to it in respect of NAB proceedings in Karachi which case still remains pending before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Thus, we have also kept in vie ,v this attitude of the Federal Government which prima facie seems to be in contradiction to its constitutional obligation under Art.10(A) to ensure speedy trials to the citizens of this country and the Preamble to the NAO and S. I 6(a) NAO "
23. Thus, apart from this being a case of further inquiry in addition based on the particular facts and circumstances of the case this delay in conclusion of the trial which completion is not in sight in the foreseeable future which may not at this stage have quite reached the position where such delay or period spent in custody of the petitioner can be regarded as shocking , un-conscious able or inordinate in our view such delay does also till the balance in favour of the grant of post arrest bail to the petitioner .
24. It goes without saying that the findin gs in this order are only after a tentative assessment of the material on record and will have no bearing on the outcome of the trial which shall be decided on merits by the trial court based on the evidence on record.
25. Thus, the petitioner is granted post arrest bail subject to him furnishing solven t surety in the amount of RS 50 lacs (fifty lacs) and PR bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Nazir of this court. The name of the petitioner shall be placed immediately on the ECL by the Secretary Ministry of Interior Government of Pakistan. A copy of this order shall be sent to the Secretary Ministry of Interior by fax for immediate compliance.
26. The above petition is disposed of in the above terms. Sd/- Mohammad Karim Khan Agha Judge OMAR SIAL, J. ---I have read the opinion of my learned brother and concur with the same. I would however like to make the following additional observations.
According to Reference No. 50 of 2016 the petitioner is accused of misusing his authority by releasing payments to advertising agencies for advertisements, which according to NAB, were at inflated rates.
This is the second post arrest bail application filed in this Court by the petitioner . The first one was dismissed on 2- 3-2017 whereas a challenge to that order in the Hon'ble Supreme Court was withdrawn after having been argued at some length by the petitioner's counsel. In accordance with well settled principles of law, at this stage the scope of his second bail application would be limited to that of a fresh ground.
The fresh ground, as argued by the learn ed counsel for the petitioner , is the letter dated 20-12-2018 written by the Ministry of Information to the Pakistan Broadcasting Association complaining that television channels are charging exorbitant rates for advertisements. The genuineness of the letter and the contents thereof have been admitted to and confirmed by both the learned Special Prosecutor and the Investigating Officer of the case during the course of hearing in these proceedings.
The Hon'ble Supreme Court in The State through Advocate General N.W.F.P. v. Zubair and 4 others (PLD 1986 SC 173) has held that a ground which was available to the accused at the time when the first bail application was filed but was not pressed, could not be considered a fresh ground in a subseque nt bail application. It was to be assumed that the ground not pressed was considered by the judge dismissing the bail application. In my very humble opinion the ground that the petitioner had not released advertisements at a higher rate compared to the prevailing market rates was available to the petitioner in the hearing of the first bail application, but it appears that the same was not pressed by the learned counsel representing the petitioner at that stage. In my view, the new ground that has arisen is the admission on behalf of the Federal Government, at this stage, that the electronic media industry was unregulated as far as rates of advertisements were concerned and further that it had been noted by the Federal Government that the television channels are charging exorbitant rates. As noted by my learned brother in his opinion, the rates at which the Sindh Government was charged were lower than what has been indicated by the Federal Government as the going rates being charged by television channels. Inflation must be factored into the rates charged to the Sindh Government during the period 2013 to 2015 and those that are being charged in 2018 (as revealed by the letter of the Federal Government), yet, the question remains as to what was the benchmark for NAB to allege that the payments made by the Government of Sindh were at an exorbitant rates. After having heard the learned Special Prosecutor and in light of the Federal Government's letter , it appears that there was none. He explained that the investigating officer had compared the amount given by the Sindh Government to the advertising agencies to the amount which was charged by the agencies to the television channels. Whether an agency gave a channel a discount for business considerations cannot be conclusively ruled out at this stage. Upon a query from the learned Special Prosecutor whether there was any evidence that the differential amount (i.e. that paid by the Government of Sindh to the agencies and that charged by the agencies' to the television channels) found its way back to the petitioner , the learned Special Prosecutor categorically conceded that there was none. In view of the admission of the Federal Government as contained in the letter of 20-12-2018 coupled with the fact that none of the differential amount found its way back to the petitioner , I agree with my learned brother that this makes it a case of further enquiry .
It has to be kept in mind that the grant of bail does not mean an acquittal. It is only the trial Court that will be in a position to adjudicate on the guilt or otherwise of the petitioner after evidence is led and the evidence has been analyzed by the trial Court.