Through this single order , we intend to decide Writ Petition No 2461 of 2019 (Manzoor Ahmad vs. NAB, etc. Writ Petition No. 2376 of 2019 (Riaz Hussain son of Naseer Ahmad (Patwari ) vs., NAB, etc.), Writ Petition No. 2466 of 2019 (Riaz Hussain vs. NAB, etc.) and Writ Petition 2218 of 2019 (Gulzar Hussain vs. NAB, etc.), as all these petitions have arisen out of the same case being investigated by NAB authorities on the charges of misuse of authority , corrupt practices and financial loss to the public exchequer in connection with Multan Metro Product. All the petitioners have prayed for grant of post arrest bail who were arrested by NAB authorities and presently are confined in jail.
2. Allegation against petitioner Manzoor Ahmad (W.P No. 2461 of 2019) is that in the capacity of Sub-Divisional Officer, Multan Development Authority (MDA) of package III and package iv of Multan Metro Bus misused his authority and committed offence of corruption and corrupt practices punishable under Section 9(a) of National Accountability Ordinance, 1999 read with the offences mentioned in the schedule to the ordinance by preparing/processing TS detail estimate on basis of NHA Templates instant of Market Rate Schedule (MRS) of Punjab Government. It was further alleged that Manzoor Ahmad, petitioner granted extension of time after lapse of more than 350 days and allowed payment of speedy execution, at the rate of 5% of contract price instead of imposing penalty as required under clause 39 of the contract agreement.
3. Likewise, it was alleged against petitioner Riaz Hussain (W.P No. 2466 of 2019) that he in the capacity of Executive Engineer-II, Multan Development Authority (MDA) misused his authority and committed offence of corruption and corrupt practices punishable under Section 9(a) of National Acco untability Ordinance, 1999 read with the offences mentioned in the schedule to the ordinance by preparing/processing TS detail estimate on basis of NHA Templates instant of Market Rate Schedule (MRS) of Punjab Government. It was further alleged that Riaz Hussain, petitioner granted extension of time after lapse of more than 350 days and allowed payment of speedly execution at the rate of 5% of contract price instead of imposing penalty as required under clause 39 of the contract agreement.
4. Riaz Hussain son of Naseer Ahmad (patwari) (W.P No. 2376 of 2019) allegedly committed offence of corruption and corrupt practices in the capacity of being a patwari of Multan Development Authority by preparing and forwarding reports regarding illegal payment of Rs. 10,009,743/- on account of change in category of land and also by forwarding the reports regarding illegal payment of Rs. 19,440,000/- on acco unt of disturbance allowance to "ghost" tenants and hence aided/abetted and failed to perform his duties which resulted into loss to national exchequer to the tune of millions of rupees in connivance with his Co-accused.
5. Gulzar Hussain, petitioner (W.P No. 2218 of 2019) was accused of committing offence of corruption by processing and verifying the reports of patwaries about the category of land and making the payments in his capacity as Qanoongo land acquisition branch of Multan Development Authority .
6. M/s. Abdul Qayyum Rao, Amjad Mushtaq and Ehsan Ali Gill Advocates representing petitioners contended that project was completed to the entire satisfaction of the employer; much after completion of project in all respects NAB authorities started an inquiry in January 2018 on anonymous complaint alleging corruption and corrupt practices during award and execution of contract by officials of Punjab Mass Transit authority; that consultants, contractor and others were involved in approval and execution of the contract; that alleged loss to the public exchequer if any, was well secured by the amout of security/bank guarantee which was deposited with Multan Development Authority (MDA); that collection of evidence has already been done by NAB authorises in this case and that admittedly project was completed in all respects and extension was granted under the Rules as such irregularity was committed. They further argued that allegations of violation of Rules are baseless as quality of work done was never questioned by any authority and till today no such allegation as to work being substandard has come forth and that simple allegation of violation of Rules without illegal gain on the part of present petitioners would be a question to be determined after recording evidence and that the petitioners have already joined the investigation and remained on physical remand with NAB authorities during which process of collection of evidence has been completed and their incarceration in jail would not serve any useful purpose. Learned counsel has placed reliance on the cases reported as Muhammad Saeed Mehdi vs. The State and 2 others (2002 SCMR 282), Wahid Bakhsh Baloch vs. The State (2014 SCMR 985 ), Saeed Ahmad vs. The State (1996 SCMR 1 132).
7. Learned Special Prosecutor for NAB opposed the petitions on the grounds that petitioners were involved in malpractices and misuse of authority which resulted in huge loss to the public exchequer .
8. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Deputy Prosecutor General for NAB at length.
9. During arguments, it has been admitted by learned Special Prosecutor for NAB that the amount of security was still lying with Multan Development Authority (MDA) and the loss alleged by the NAB authorities can be made good by adjusting the amount. It has further been admitted that Chairman NAB has also approved adjustment of the amount from security amount already lying with the Multan Development Authority (MDA). We have noticed that the quality of work done at the spot has not been questioned in this case. It was not allegation against the petitioners that substandard work was done due to which loss was caused to national exchequer; rather it was case of prosecution/NAB authorities that work was not completed within stipulated period which was extended for one year and the amount at the rate of 5% for execution of work was paid to the contractors instead of imposing penalty . It is worth noticing that inquiry was initiated by NAB authorities on anonymous complain. The project, otherwise, was completed in all respects within extended time by competent authority . Petitioners were not alleged to have gained financial benefit from the amount paid from national exchequer and they were only blamed with misuse of authority and violating the rules on the subject. As noted above, the amount of loss calculated allegedly paid to the contractor was fully secured and could be adjusted from the amount already deposited. In reported case Muhammad Saeed Mehdi vs. The State and 2 others (2002 SCMR 282), it was observed that bail cannot be withheld as punishment in cases of non-bailable offence against accused and that basic idea was to enable the accused to answer the criminal prosecution against him rather than to rot him behind the bars.
In the same case, the apex Court observed that truth or otherwise of allegation could only be determined at the trial after analysis of evidence that might be adduced by the parties and object of National Accountability Bureau Ordinance 1999 in its preamble provided for expeditious trial within shortest possible time. In another case reported as Saeed Ahmad vs. The State (1996 SCMR 1132) a case of corruption, it was observed that case against accused was based on entirely documentary evidence which was in possession of the prosecution and there was no possibility of tempering of the same, hence bail was granted to the accused/petitioner .
The allegations of misuse of authority and illegal gain are yet to be proved by the prosecution in this case. The loss calculated by the prosecution can also be made good from the amount of securi ty already deposited by the co- accused Syed Masood Hussain. Moreover already the co-accused namely Syed Masood Hussain, Rana Waseem, Farhan Haider , Munem Saeed, Sabir Khan and Amanat Ali have been admitted to post arrest bail by this Court.
The rule of consistency is also applicable in this case. We feel that the case of the petitioners is identical to the case of co-accused, therefore, they are entitled to equal treatment in the eyes of law, following the rule of consistency . Reliance is placed on the case of Muhammad Baud and another versus The State and another (2008 SCMR 173 ).
10. For the reasons recorded above, we are of the view that petitioners are entitled to the grant of post arrest bail.
Consequently , all the above referred petitions are accepted; petitioners shall be released subject to furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs, 1,000,000/- (Rupees ten lacs only each with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned trial Court, if not required in any other case.