' The facts leading to the present application for bail are that applicant/accused Muhammad Usman Farooqui is facing trial in Case No,4 of 1998, before Special Judge (Central) No,II, Karachi, which has arisen out of F.I.R. No,2 of 1998, registered by F.I.A. Crime Circle-II, Karachi, on 15-5-1998, under section 420, P.P.C. Read with section 5(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act (Act H of 1947). The contents of F.I.R. Are reproduced herein below in extenso:-- "Consequent upon an enquiry No,DKZ-09/97, dated 2-1-1997, it has revealed that accused Muhammad Usman Farooqui, Ex-Chairman, Pakistan Steel Mills, Karachi, while performing his duties in different official capacities during the years 1987 to 1996 acquired a lot of properties by corrupt means, apparently by and his known sources of income. The accused with intent to hide such property willfully and deliberately suppressed the true facts of the alleged property and did not file his Annual Declaration of Assets Forms of the said property before the Ministry of Industry and Production, in spite of the letter sent by the Ministry to Chairman, Still no positive result could come to light. The enquiry has further disclosed that he acquired and amassed huge wealth by looting and plundering National exchequer. In this regard Ehtesab Bureau and the other police station of the F.I.A. Conducted various raids and recovered properties worth hundreds millions of rupees.
' The above acts of the accused discloses the commission of offences of deception and criminal misconduct punishable under section 420, P.P.C. Read with section 5(2) of P.C.A.-II, 1947. The case accordingly registered with the permission of the competent Authority and the investigation has been taken by the undersigned."
2. The applicant/accused was in custody in other cases and after usual investigation he was sent up in the above case under interim charge-sheet on 30-5-1998.
3. The applicant/accused applied for bail before the trial Court but his bail plea was refused by impugned order, dated 16-6-1998.
4. Mr. I.A. Hashmi, the learned counsel for the applicant/accused has contended that the allegations made in the F.I.R. Relate to the period ranging from 1987 to 1996 and that no notice of what is mentioned in the F.I.R. In the shape of allegations was taken for two years and now in 1998 the Investigating Agency has all of a sudden come out with allegation of the non-declaration of property by a public servant. He has contended that the allegations made in F.I.R. Do not fall within the purview of section 420, P.P.C. Or section 5(2) of Act II of 1947; that the offences in F.I.R. Do not fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497(1), Cr.P.C. As they are not punishable with death, imprisonment for life or ten years; that the applicant/accused is in custody since last about 2 years; that he is ill and suffering from various serious ailments and he requires constant care, medication and treatment which cannot be provided to him in jail as opined by the Chief Medical Officer of Central Prison, Karachi. It is, therefore, contended that he is a sick and infirm person and that he is entitled to bail; that all the properties shown in the interim challah are in the name of his other relations except cash amount in the Bank; that admittedly the other properties are in the name of his wife, daughter and other relations but they are not sent up to stand trial; that all the instances shown in F.I.R. Are subject-matter of different F.I.Rs,' and Ehtesab references which are sub juice; that the applicant/accused was granted bail in all the cases instituted against him barring the present one. The learned counsel has placed reliance on Malik Muhammad Yousafullah Khan v. The State and another PLD 1995 SC 58, Munawar Din v. Gul Zaman 1978 PCr.LJ 64, Abdul Hai Siddiqui and 2 others v. The State 1993 PCr.LJ 446, Muhammad Sarfraz and 3 others v. The State 1976 SCM R 178 and State through Advocate-General, Sindh v. Qazi Pervez lqbal and others PLD 1978 SC 64.
5. Mr. S. Mamnoon Hasan, learned Deputy Attorney-General, opposed the grant of bail and stated that there is likelihood of his abscondence and that huge amount and properties have been accumulated by the applicant/accused by illegal means, therefore, he is not entitled to bail.
6. Mr. I.A. Hashmi, in reply to learned Dy. A.-G., has contended that all the properties shown in the challah were confiscated and seized by the Government and medical evidence reveals that even his journey by plane would be hazardous to his life. He has referred to following para. Of the challah at page No,17 of the case file:-- "During the course of investigation accused Muhammad Usman Farooqi was arrested on 15-5-1998 and his police custody remand was initially obtained from the Judicial Magistrate Malir for two days w,e,f, 15-5-1998. For the purpose of Investigation/Interrogation, transfer remand of the accused was also obtained from the Judicial Magistrate Malir to shift the accused at Islamabad for the purpose and accused Usman Farooqi was thereafter shifted to Islamabad. On 17-5-1998 accused Muhammad Farooqi was again produced before the Judicial Magistrate Islamabad and remand was obtained for one day. Again remand was obtained from the Judicial Magistrate, Islamabad up to be 29-5-1998. On 28-5-1998 accused was again produced before the Judicial Magistrate, Islamabad for transfer permission to shift the accused at Karachi, who very kindly allowed the same. However, prior to departure the doctor of P.I.M.S. Examined the accused and advised to refrain the accused from journey. Therefore, accused could not be brought to Karachi on 28-5-1998....."
7. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the material placed on record.
8. The list filed in support of bail plea shows that barring the present case the applicant/accused was granted bail in following seven cases by this Court as well as by the trial Court:-
(1) F.I.R. No.2 of 1997,F.I.A.
S.B.C.,Bail has been granted by HonourableKarachi High Court vide order passed in Bail Application No.547 of 1997, dated 27-4-1998.
(2) Ehtesab Reference No. 16 of 1997Bail has been granted by the Ehtesab Bench at Karachi. Order passed by Mr. justice Dr. Ghous Muhammad.Order dated 6-4-1998.
(3) F. I. R. No.4 of 1998, F.I.A.
S.I.U., Islamabad.Bail granted in the sum of Rs.5,00,000 in Bail Application No.657 of 1998.
(4) F.I.R. No.19 of 1996 F.I.A.
S.B.C., KarachiBail has been granted by the learned Special Judge Central-II, Karachi, in the sum of Rs.5,00,000.
(5) F.I.R. No.21 of 1996 F.I.A.
S.B.C., KarachiBail has been granted by the Special Judge Central-II, Karachi in the sum of Rs.5,00,000.
(6)F.I.R. No.2 of 1996 F.I.A.
S.B.C., KarachiBail has been granted by Special Judge Central-II, Karachi in the sum of Rs.5,00,000.
(7)F.I.R. No.13 of 1997 F.I.A.
S.B.C., KarachiBail has been granted by the Honourable High Court vide Criminal Bail Application No.356 of 1998 in the sum of Rs.10,00,000.
9. Apart from that various medical certificates issued by Agha Khan University Hospital, Karachi, Institute of Clinical Ophthalmology and Liaquat National Hospital, Karachi, placed on record show that the applicant is suffering from class 3 angina with occasional nocturnal and chest pain. He had undergone coronary bypass surgery which was got complicated by sternum wound infection.
He has an inguinal hernia. The ophthalmology test shows that he is a patient of glaucoma and his right eyesight has reduced to 6/12 and the left is 6/6. He has also cervical spine problem. There is moderately severe central disc herniation at C4/5 which is causing pressure on the thecalsac and pressure on the spinal cord. There is diffuse disc herniation at C5/6 which is causing pressure on the theca] sac and pressure on the spinal cord. There is also mild disc herniation at C3/4 with pressure on the theca sac. His cardiac rehabilitation has been hampered due to his detention in jail as under trial prisoner.
10. The letter of Chief Medical Officer, Central Prison, Karachi, shows that applicant/accused is not only heart patient but is a patient of diabetes mellitus and he is also a case of adjustment disorder and depression: He requires constant treatment by a cardiac surgeon, physician and psychiatrist and rehabilitation under the supervision of various specialists. According to him, facilities for such supervision are not available in jail.
11. Now, I will advert to another aspect of the matter. The case has not proceeded so far and even final challah has not been submitted before the trial Court. The amount and properties not declared in Annual Declaration of Assets Forms. The question whether these amounts and properties belong to applicant/accused or to his other family members by inheritance etc. Or other relations requires further enquiry as contemplated under section 497(2), Cr.P.C. This fact coupled with the fact of sickness entitles the applicant/accused to bail. In this context I am fortified by the decisions of this Court in respect of applicant/accused vide Criminal Bail Application No,547 of 1997 in Ehtesab Reference No,16 of 1997, M.A. No,19 of 1998, Criminal Bail Application No,356 of 1998 and also reported decisions in the cases of Haji Mir Aftab v. The State 1979 SCM R 320, Muhammad Bashir v. The State 1991 PCr.LJ 2422 and Malik Muhammad Yousafullah Khan v. The State PLD 1995 SC 58.
12. The upshot of the above discussion is that the bail plea of applicant/accused merits consideration. Consequently, applicant/accused is granted bail in the sum of Rs,20,00,000 (two million) with P.R. Bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of Nazir of this Court.