MUHAMMAD IQBAL KALHORO, J.---Petitioner claims to be a politician and currently serving as Advisor to Chief Minister of Sindh with portfolio of Prisons and Inter Provincial Coordination. He also claims to have served in Federal Cabinet after being elected as Member , National Assembly from Jacobabad.
2. He has further alleged that National Accountability Bureau (NAB) has been harassing, humiliating and maltreating him and his family members on account of false and frivolous cases. It is also trying to malign him through print and electronic media at the instance of his rival politician Mian Muhammad Soomro with whom he contested the election in 2018 but lost. He challenged his success before the Election Tribunal and was successful in obtaining an order for recounting the votes but that order has been challenged in the Honourable Supreme Court and the matter is currently pending there. Per him, some time ago he came to know through media that NAB had initiated an enquiry against him, which was in utter violation and disregard of his fundamental rights. He therefore approached this court for a relief and was able to obtain a favorable order but subsequently he received a Call-Up- Notice dated 26.02.2019 in respect of an enquiry into his assets, which too was launched against him at the instance of his political rival Mian Muhammad Soomro. However , he again approached this court and was granted an order restraining NAB from his name was placed on Exit Control List (ECL) vide Memorandum dated 03.07.2019 and without issuing him a Calf-Up-Notice, another enquiry was initiated against him, and his cousin namely Ghulam Abbas Jakhrani, who was arrested from his house. The enquiry finally culminated in filing of a Reference No.02/2020 against him and his family members in the learned Accountability Court at Sukkur , and he is on bail in that case.
3. After citing the above backdrop, the petitioner has asked for a restraining order against his arrest on the basis of any hidden enquiry or investigation witho ut permission from this court or in alternative to grant him pre-arrest bail.
He is also seeking directions for NAB to bring on record and produce the number of enquiries and investigations launched against him with a view to enable him to defend himself. In addition, he is asking for protection to his life and liberty .
4. In reply , NAB in comments has alleged that on the basis of complaints that petitioner has become billionaire after joining politics enquiries were set in motion regarding his assets and misappro priation in Annual Development Program (ADP) of Machinery and Maintenance Division, Districts Khairpur and Jacobabad alias Kashmore Kandhkot for the years 2015 to 2019.
5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. Learned defence counsel has reiterated the facts mentioned in this petition to establish that NAB is acting against the petitioner with a motive and at the instance of his rival politician Mian Muhammad Soomro to dissuade him from contesting elections against him and be a formidable opponent. He next said that against the petitioner two references viz. Reference No.02/2020 and No.23/2020 have been filed on identical facts and accusations in violation of Article 13 of the Constitution, which is sufficient to show mala fide on the part of NAB. He further urged that during investigations of those references he was never issued any Call-Up-Notice on purpose so as to arrest him unguarded. But due to his timely approach to this court he was able to obtain a restraining order against his arrest. He' stated that in Reference No.02/2020 he is already on bail and in Reference No.23/2020 as an alternate relief, he may be extended concession of pre-arrest bail. In support of his contentions, learned counsel' has relied upon the case laws reported in 2017 SCMR 2060 , PLD 2017 Sindh 243, PLD 2020 SC 456 , 2009 SCMR 141 and 2019 PCr .LJ 1 145.
6. Learned Special Prosecutor , NAB and I.O. however , opposed contentions of learned defence counsel and submitted that two references filed against the petitioner are quite distinguishable from each, other . One pertains to his accumulating assets beyond his income, the other is in regard to allegation of embezzlement in the funds of ADP; that insofar as Reference No.10/2019 is concerned, the petitioner has not been arraigned therein; therefore, there is no question of mala fide on the part of NAB to go after him. They further submitted that sufficient evidence has been collected against the petitioner in Reference No.23/2020, which connects him in the alleged offences, as such he is not entitled to any relief sought by him in the petition or to pre-arrest bail.
7. It may be stated at the very outset that this petition was being taken up along with other petitions filed by various petitioners for pre-arrest bail in the enquiry/investigation when on 10.12.2020 learned Special Prosecutor , NAB informed about filing of Reference No.23/2020 against the petitioner and others petitioners in connected petitions in that very investigation in the learned Accountability Court at Sukkur and requested for transmitting of the all petitions to the Bench of this Court at Sukkur for further proceedings in compliance of a Circular of Honourable Chief Justice in this connection. All agreed but learned counsel for the petitioner resisted his request and submitted that since in this petition, the petitioner besides pre-arrest bail was asking for various other reliefs, this petition may be separated and kept at Karachi. As per his request this petition was fixed on 17.12.2020 for hearing when it was dismissed through a short order .
8. With the assistance of learned consul for the parties, we have perused the record, which shows that Reference No.02/2020 has been registered against the petitioner and his family members on the basis of investigation instituted in the wake of receiving various complaints against him for accumulating assets' disproportionate to his known sources of income, which spiked only after he entered the politics in the year 2001. The investigation culminating in Reference No.23/2020 against the petitioner and others started on the directions of Honourable Supreme Court passed in Human Rights Case No.66523-S/2018 and is in respect of allegations of misuse of authority , misappropriation of funds in Annual Development Program of Machinery and Maintenance Division of Districts Shikarpur and Jacobabad, Allegedly in the investigation whereof huge sums of money , the details of which are mentioned in the reference, were found deposited into bank accounts of the petitioner over staggered time by different contractors. The relevant evidence in the shape of documents is available on record, which vouch for accusations and which prima facie connect the petitioner with the alleged of fence.
9. In this reference some of the properties purchased by the petitioner have also been identified, which, among others, are the af the two references is altogether different from each other but, the accusations against the petitioner are quite distinctive and distingu ishable from each other in both the references. Reference No.02/2020 is outcome of complaints against petitioner spotting unusual spike in his assets after his foray into politics. Whereas, Reference No.23/2020 is not only against the petitioner , but officials of Machinery and Maintenance Division and is outcome of directions passed by the Honourable Supreme Court for enquiring into allegations of misappropriations of funds in that department. Mentioning of few properties in both the references would not make the accusations or the of fences identical so as to attract the principle of double jeopardy .
10. Regardless of what has been stated above, legally speaking, mere pendency of two prosecutions, may be in respect of same accusations and offence s, would not be in violation of scheme under Article 13 of the Constitution unless one has ended either in acquittal or conviction of the accused. In support of this view, the cases of Syed Alamdar . Hussain v. Abdul Baseer Qureshi (PLD 1978 Supreme Court 121), Muhammad Nadeem Anwar v.
Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan (2014 SCMR 1376 ) and Manzoor Ahmed v. The State (PLD 2003 Karachi 97 ) can be cited.
11. Although learned defence counsel was adamant in his arguments that NAB's alleged witch hunt against him is the outcome of machinations and intrigues designed by his political rival Mian Muhammad Soomro but he was not able to point out to any material in this regard to convince us to cede to his line of arguments. Some proceedings on election matters between the petitioner and the said person would not be ipso. facto a persuasive proof of mala fide on the part of NAB or its collusion with him in initiating investigations into allegations, which have now been ripened into filing of references against the petitioner before the relevant Accountability Court at Sukkur .
12. In the facts and circumstances, we do not find the petitioner entitled to any of the reliefs sought by him by means of this petition or to extend him extra ordinary concession of pre-arrest bail in Reference No.23/2020 in presence of prima facie evidence agains t him. Particularly so, when there is no mala fide on the part of NAB in filing of this reference against him. Needless to reiterate that relief of pre-arrest bail is only meant to protect an innocent person from arrest and concomitant humiliation and disgrace in the wake of his apparent false implication in the case out of mala tide and ulterior motives either on the part of complainant or the police. In the present case, as we have discussed above, no such material is available to entitle the petitioner to such an extraordinary relief.
Resultantly , the petition is dismissed and interim orders passed earlier are recalled . These are the reasons for our short order which was announced on 17.12.2020 dismissing the above petition.