1. ' The appellant/accused is facing trial before the Accountability Court in Reference No,16 of 2002 alongwith several other accused persons. The prosecution allegation is that the applicant and the other accused persons in connivance with each other and by playing fraud and applying deceitful methods deprived the Employees' Old-Age Benefits Institution (EOBI) of Federal Investment Bonds (FIBs), of the face value of Rs,1040 Millions, deriving benefit of more than a billion of rupees and causing loss to EOBI of Rs, 1,618,842,672 (Rupees one billion six hundred eighteen million eight hundred forty-two thousand six hundred seventy-two only).
2. ' Syed Mahmood Alam Rizvi, learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that, according to prosecution case co-accused Sheikh Barkatullah, Ex-Chairman of EOBI in connivance with co- accused Muhammad Tahir Siddiqui and other co-accused managed to obtain physical possession of FIBs of the face value of Rupees 1040 Million owned and held by EOBI without any security and transfer of funds, under a purported Repurchase Option arrangement entered into, between EOBI and three companies namely, Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Leasing Company Limited, Prudential Discount and Guarantee House Limited and Prudential Securities Limited. The fraudulent transaction took place during the period from June 1999 onward. These companies were used as instruments for illegally acquiring/selling the FIBs and getting the sale proceeds siphoned into another company. Namely, Republic Securities Limited, which was controlled and managed by co-accused Muhammad Tahir Siddiqui. Having illegally sold the FIBs the accused persons created fake Repo deal between EOBI and RSL on 3-2-2000 for the same FIBs and Inter World Securities Limited on 3-2-2000 for the FIBs worth Rupees 440 Millions. These Repo deals were entered by EOBI with Republic Securities Limited and Interworld Securities 'Limited without receiving back the FIBs from Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Leasing Company Limited, Prudential Discount and Guarantee House Limited and Prudential Securities Limited, and without any security.
3. To further cover up the illegal sale of the FIBs, the accused persons staged a drama of terminating the purported Repo deals with Republic Securities Limited and Interworld Securities Limited and created yet another fake security based Repo deal with the bank of Ceylon on 26-9-2000; again without receiving back the FIBs from Republic Securities Limited and Interworld Securities Limited.
4. The purported security obtained from the Bank of Ceylon was post-dated pay order of the amount of Rupees 1040 Million. This pay order as well as correspondence with Bank of Ceylon is reportedly forged/fake. Thus, they are alleged to have caused a loss to the EOBI to the extent of Rs,1,618.842.672 (Rupees one billion six hundred eighteen million eight hundred forty-two thousand six hundred seventy-two).
5. ' He has contended that, notwithstanding. The prosecution story the real facts are that the applicant Muhammad Zafar lqbal. Joined Prudential Group in November. 1993 as Senior Accounts Officer in Prudential Investment Bank Limited and served in various positions in the Accounts Department of Prudential Investment Bank and Prudential Commercial Bank Limited. He resigned from Prudential Commercial Bank Limited in April, 2000 from the post of Assistant Vice-President (Finance), and joined Republic Securities Limited as Financial Controller in May, 2000 and has served there since then and hence has no concern with any deal made by Republic Securities Limited prior to his joining the same. According to learned counsel for the applicant, the applicant Muhammad Zafar Iqbal was a salaried employee of Republic Securities Limited and the ratio of the judgment of Honourable Supreme Court in the case of Imtiaz Ahmad and others v. The State PLD 1997 SC 545, is not attracted, because, he was not holder of public office. He has further submitted that, there is no evidence on record to show that, the applicant is in any way connected with the commission of offence alleged or is beneficiary of the alleged corruption. He has urged that, co- accused Haq Nawaz Akhtar has been granted bail by this Court in Criminal Bail Application No,358 of 2002 and the case of the present applicant is identical, therefore, the present applicant may also be released on bail as per rule of consistency.
6. ' On the other hand, learned Advocates appearing for the NAB/State have submitted that, in the statement tiled on behalf of NAB, copy whereof has been supplied to the learned counsel for the applicant, the specific role played by the applicant Muhammad Zafar Iqbal, in the conspiracy hatched to rob EOBI has been highlighted. They have pointed out that, applicant Muhammad Zafar Iqbal was appointed in the Prudential Commercial Bank Limited on the recommendation of Muhammad Tahir Siddiqui, the then Manager (Finance), Prudential Commercial Bank Limited. On 28-6-1999, co-accused Muhammad Tahir Siddiqui acquired duly discharged blank FIBs by fraudulent means and the FIBs worth Rs,600 Million were deposited on 30-6-1999 in the SGL Account of Prudential Commercial Bank Limited maintained with State Bank of Pakistan, by applicant/accused Muhammad Zafar Iqbal and Muhammad Tahir Siddiqui under their signatures.
7. The funds were fictitiously generated through the documents signed by co-accused Muhammad Tahir Siddiqui and the applicant/accused Muhammad Zafar Iqbal. Similarly, the FIBs worth Rs,440 Million were deposited in the same manner under the signatures of co-accused Muhammad Tahir Siddiqui and present applicant/accused Muhammad Zafar Iqbal. They have submitted that, in this manner the applicant/accused actively abetted co-accused Muhammad Tahir Siddiqui in fraudulently acquiring FIBs worth Rs,1,040 Million from EOBI. The pay orders and cheques were signed jointly by co-accused Muhammad Tahir Siddiqui and present applicant Muhammad Zafar Iqbal. The PODs 119 and 118 for FIBs of Rs,150 Million were issued/signed by present applicant/accused Muhammad Zafar Iqbal and co-accused Muhammad Tahir Siddiqui, while the PODs and FIBs worth Rs,50 Million were signed by applicant/ accused Muhammad Zafar Iqbal, alongwith Muhammad Arshad and Muhammad Altaf Madraswala. The transactions were not posted in the account maintained by applicant/accused Muhammad Zafar Iqbal in order to conceal the transaction from State Bank of Pakistan. They have referred to several such transactions bearing signatures of applicant Muhammad Zafar !Pal. The photocopies of such documents being Annexures R-10 to R-76 have-been produced in support of the contention. They have produced photocopies of several fake cheques signed by the applicant/accused Muhammad Zafar Iqbal alongwith other persons. They have submitted that, the applicant thereafter left the Prudential Commercial Bank Limited and joined Republic Securities Limited as Financial Controller and availed loan facility of Rs,9,00,000 (Rupees nine lacs). According to them, there is overwhelming material on record to connect the applicant with the commission of offence whereby huge losses have been caused to the EOBI in connivance with co-accused Muhammad Tahir Siddiqui and other accused persons.
8. ' The learned Advocates appearing for the State/NAB have further submitted that, this very Bench has decided the bail applications of Haq Nawaz Akhtar and Syed Samir Raid being Criminal Bail Applications Nos.358 of 2002 and 1780 of 2001. The bail application of co-accused Haq Nawaz Akhtar was allowed, while bail plea of co-accused Syed Samir Rauf was rejected. They have submitted that, clear line of demarcation has been drawn in the above orders for the purpose of grant of bail. Co-accused Haq Nawaz Akhtar was granted bail because, no personal benefits by illegal means were established to have been derived by him while co-accused Syed Samir Rauf was refused the concession of bail for the reason that, the prosecution was able to establish that, there was sufficient material against Syed Samir Rauf which could be decided after recording of evidence. The order passed by this Bench dated 22-3-2002 refusing the bail plea of co-accused Syed Samir Rauf was assailed before the Honourable Supreme Court in Criminal Petition for Leave to Appeal No,175 of 2002 and the petition was dismissed, vide order dated 8-7-2002. The learned Advocates appearing for, the NAB/State have opposed the bail application.
9. ' We have carefully considered the contentions raised by the learned Advocates for the parties and have gone through the material available on record as well as the order of Honourable Supreme Court dated 8-7-2002, in Criminal Petition for Leave to Appeal No,175 of 2002, preferred by co- accused Syed Samir Rauf.
10. ' The learned counsel for the applicant was not able to rebut the contentions raised by the learned Advocates for the State. He submitted that, the applicant being salaried employee and second signatory to the documents, on which the prosecution is placing reliance, is not responsible independently. After a very careful consideration, we are of the opinion that, the prosecution is equipped with the material to show that prima facie the applicant committed such acts which amount to the abetment of the offence of corruption and corrupt practices by the principal accused Muhammad Tahir Siddiqui.
11. ' In our earlier judgment, we had placed reliance on the observations made by the Honourable Supreme Court in the case reported as Imtiaz Ahmed and another v. The State PLD 1997 SC 545 and the Honourable Supreme Court while upholding the said order has referred the following passage:- - "7... I may observe that a distinction is to be made between an offence which is committed against an individual like a theft and an offence which is directed against the society as a whole for the purpose of bail. Similarly, a distinction is to be kept in mind between an offence committed by an individual in his private capacity and an offence committed by a public functionary in respect of or in connection with his public office for the aforesaid purpose of bail. In the former cases, the practices to allow bail in cases not falling under prohibitory clause of section 497, Criminal Procedure Code in the absence of an exceptional circumstance may be followed, but in the latter category, the Courts should be strict in exercise of discretion of bail. In my view, the above category of the offenders belongs to a distinct class and they qualify to be treated falling within an exceptional circumstance of the nature Warranting refusal of bail even where maximum sentence is less than 10 years' R.I. For the offence involved provided the Court is satisfied that prima facie, there is material on record to connect the accused concerned with the commission of the offence involved."
12. ' The Honourable Supreme Court has further referred to the following observation in the case of Zeeshan Kazmi v. The State PLD 1997 SC 267:-- "7 ... The crime rate has increased manifolds. The criminal instinct/propensity has penetrated in all walks of life. Some of the personnel of the State functionaries/agencies which are entrusted with the duty to protect the life, property and honour of citizens, either themselves actively participate in the commission of the heinous crime or they provide protective umbrella to the criminals. Their credibility has been denuded to the extent that the victims of the crimes do not approach them for their help or protection which they are otherwise entitled to as a matter of right under the Constitution."
13. ' We are of the prima facie view that, the reasonable grounds exist to connect the applicant with the commission of offence charged with, and therefore, keeping in view the observations of Honourable Supreme Court, cited above, hold that, it is not a fit case for release of applicant on bail. Consequently, the bail.Application stands dismissed.
14. ' After hearing the learned Advocates for the parties on 9-8-2002 bail application was dismissed by a short order, for the reason recorded above.