' This is an application filed by applicant Liaquat All Jatoi seeking bail before arrest. According to the applicant, a case has been registered against him at Karachi by Anti-Corruption Establishment under sections 403 and 409, P.P.C. Read with section 5(2) of Act II of 1947 alleging that the applicant who was the Finance Minister in the previous Government of Sindh had allocated Rs,20,00,000 to the Board of Revenue for advancement of Taqavi Loans to the agriculturists and during disbursement of such loan Rs,5,00,000 had been found to be advanced to near relatives of the applicant. The case has been investigated and challan dated 18-7-1994 was filed in the Court of Special Judge, Anti-Corruption. According to the allegations embodied in the challan, the said amount of Rs,5,00,000 had been paid to the applicant and his other family members without fulfilment of legal formalities as the land which was offered as collateral security had already been mortgaged with A.D.B.P. Mehar during 1983. The loan had been paid to one Dadan Chandio on false special power of attorney and the said Dadan Chandio was stated to be the applicant's man. It has also been alleged in the challan that the original Revenue Record has been misplaced hence separate action was contemplated in this behalf.
2. On 2-1-1995 this bail application was presented before me because Mr. Justice All Muhammad Baloch who had earlier granted bail to the co-accused in the case, was not available on account of winter holidays. Interim bail was granted to the applicant in the sum of Rs,50,000 and ' since then the applicant has remained on bail. The record of the case indicates that the applicant had also approached the Honourable Supreme Court under Article 186-A of the Constitution during the pendency of the present bail application as according to the applicant, he was unable to surrender before this Court as he apprehended his arrest and danger to life. According to the applicant, he was being victimized as he belonged to district Dadu to which the sitting Chief Minister of Sindh also belonged. The applicant, according to him, had also invited Mr. Nawaz Sharif to Dadu and Larkana which resulted in resentment by the Government of Sindh. Under such circumstances, on 12-12-1994 interim bail was granted to the applicant by the Supreme Court and the bail was further extended for 15 days vide order, dated 20-12-1994 to enable the applicant to appear before this court and pursue his bail application.
3. The bail application has been opposed by the learned Advocate-General, according to whom the applicant is an absconder as he had earlier approached the Special Judge, Anti-Corruption for grant of bail before arrest but the application was subsequently withdrawn on 29-8-1994. The applicant had also moved the Balochistan High Court for protective bail but such application was not pursued by the applicant after protective bail had been granted to the applicant for 21 days by the Balochistan High Court. The present bail application was filed by the applicant before this Court on 18-9-1994 when during its pendency the applicant approached the Supreme Court as pointed out earlier. It has also been pointed out that after filing of challan before the learned Special Court, the applicant has been declared as absconder and proclamation under section 87, Cr.P.C. Has been ordered to be issued against him. In view of such circumstances, the learned Advocate- General has argued that the applicant is not entitled to concession of bail in the present case.
Reliance has been placed by the learned Advocate-General upon Awal v. Zawar Khan PLD 1985 SC 402 and Muhammad Sadiq v. Sadiq PLD 1985 SC 182 wherein it had been observed by the Supreme Court that unexplained noticeable abscondence would disentitle a person to concession of bail notwithstanding the merits of his case. However, in The State v. Malik Mukhtar Ahmad Awan 1991 SCM R 322 it was observed by the Supreme Court that the rule that a fugitive from law should, under no circumstances, be enlarged on bail, is not absolute and the question can be examined after taking into consideration the circumstances of each case. Somewhat similar observations can be found in the case of Ibrahim v. Hayat Gul and others 1985 SCM R 382.
4. So far as the facts of the present case are concerned, the observations made by the Supreme Court in the applicant's case clearly indicate the reasons for non-appearance of the applicant before the learned Special Judge or before this Court after filing of the application for pre-arrest bail by the applicant. Therefore, it cannot be said that the circumstances under which the applicant did not appear before the learned Special Court or this Court have remained unexplained. It is also pertinent to point out that protective bail was granted to the applicant in the said case in presence of the learned Advocate-General who raised no objection in respect of grant of protective bail to the applicant to enable him to appear before this Court and pursue his bail application earlier filed before this Court. In view of the circumstances, it is not possible to accept the preliminary objection raised by the learned Advocate-General. The objection is, therefore, overruled.
5. So far as the merits of the case are concerned, as has already been observed in the order, dated 2-1-1995, there are no allegations against the applicant directly involving him into the commission of the alleged crime. From the facts disclosed in the F.I.R. Or in the challan reference to which has earlier been made in this order, nothing can be spelt out to suggest that the applicant had himself played any direct role in obtaining the said loan bat even if it is accepted for the sake of arguments that the applicant did play some part in the same, mere grant of loan prima facie cannot constitute an offence. No doubt, the same would depend upon the circumstances of each case but in view of the circumstances of the case without any direct evidence against the applicant in this regard, the case against the applicant requires further inquiry.
6. For the aforesaid reasons, interim bail earlier granted to the applicant is confirmed.
Interim .