UAZ-UL-HASSAN, J.---Sadaqat Ali, petitioner by way of filing instant writ petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of the Islamic Repuboic of Pakistan, 1973, seeks grant of bail.
2. The facts which we have been able to gather from the record of the case are that for Ghazi Barotha Hydro' Power Project Land of different villages of Tehsil Ghazi, District Haripur was acquired and for assessing fair compensation of land for every village a Land Valuation Committee (LVC) consisting of two representatives of the effectee landowners, one representative of WAPDA and Chief Executive of Ghazi Barotha Taraqiati Idara (GBTI) presided over by Assistant Commissioner.
Ghazi was constituted under the provisions of Ghazi Barotha Hydel Power (GBHP) Resettlement Action Plan (RAP). Was constituted. The committee was an advisory body to assist the Land Acquisition Collector (LAC). Vide Award No,7 dated 21-5-1996, 569 Kanals, 9 Marlas land of Village Bhai, Tehsil Ghazi District Haripur, belonging to 123 landowners including petitioner was acquired for Ghazi Barotha Project. Keeping in view the potentiality of land, landowners demanded its compensation at the rate of Rupees three lacs per Kanali Demand of GBTI was Rs,1,30,000 per Kanal. WAPDA (acquiring department) offered Rs,10.000 per Kanal. Petitioner was one of the members of LVC of Village Bhai as representative of affectee landowners. Land Valuation Committee (LVC) recommended Rs,1,12,761 per Kanal as compensation of acquired land against the demand of petitioner. Land Acquisition Collector accepted the demand of LVC and granted Rs,1,12.761 per Kanal as compensation of acquired land of Village Bhai.
3. It appears, that the Chairman, National Accountability Bureau. Chief Executive Secretariat, Islamabad, respondent No,2 filed reference against several awards of different villages in which the petitioner has been arrayed as one of the accused persons. On 29-9-2001 petitioner was arrested by respondent under sections 9 and 10 of the NAB Ordinance. 1999 for receiving compensation of his acquired land under Award No,7 and being member of LVC.
4. Bail is sought principally on the ground that arrest of petitioner on the fact of record is discriminatory, mala fide, unconstitutional, illegal and violative of his fundamental rights, as guaranteed by Constitution.
5. Mr. S.M. Atique Shah. Advocate, learned counsel for the petitioner in support of the bail application contended that petitioner had no hand in the commission of crime and that an unfair treatment has been meted out to him without any justifiable reason.
6. Mr. Haider Ali, Advocate, appearing on behalf of respondents, controverted the arguments addressed by his adversary and maintained that prosecution is in possession of sufficient material to connect the petitioner with the guilt and that the petitioner has not been treated differently providing a justification for grant of bail.
7. After we have gone through record of the case and we have reproduced the submissions made by counsel for the petitioner as well as counsel appearing for the respondents we are left with no doubt that in view of the judgment reported in Khan Asfandyar Wali and others v. Federation of Pakistan through Cabinet Division, Islamabad and others PLD 2001 SC 607, this Court is vested with powers and authority to grant bail to an accused person under the NAB Ordinance but while exercising such authority would invoke its Constitutional jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan. However, for guidelines the broad principles of section 497, Cr.P.C. May be kept in mind.
8. Be that as it may, without expressing our opinion about merits of the case, we find that prosecution is in possession of sufficient evidence to connect the petitioner with the crime and at this stage the petitioner is not entitled for grant of bail. The learned counsel for the petitioner has remained unable to show that petitioner has been discriminated and treated differently qua other members of Land Valuation Committee (LVC). Admittedly, the petitioner is a member and one of the signatories of the said committee. The mere fact that official representing WAPDA or Chairman of the Committee, have not been arrested and the petitioner has been singled out, by itself, constitutes no good ground to release the petitioner on bail. It is submitted by the learned State Counsel that trial is near completion and only the statement of the Investigating Officer has to be recorded on the next date of hearing and in case the petitioner is admitted to bail, prosecution case shall be adversely affected. The submission is forceful.
9. In the wake of above discussion, we do not feel inclined admit the petitioner to bail. His application fails which is hereby rejected and the bail is refused. However, the trial Court shall conclude the trial as expeditiously as possible not exceeding six months.
10. The observations made above are tentative in nature and the learned trial Judge would decide the case on the basis of the material produced before him.