1. I intend to dispose of the above three criminal bail applications with this common order, as these are outcome of one and the same F.I.R. The applicants in above bail applications were granted interim bail before arrest vide order dated 11-10-2002 and 1-11-2001 These bail applications have come for confirmation or otherwise. Mr.Kazi Wali Muhammad has not opposed these applications on merits, but has raised the objection that proprietary demands that the applicants should have approached the trial Court which has concurrent jurisdiction or protective bail be granted to them so that they may surrender before the trial Court for seeking pre-arrest bail. Mr. Rasheed A. Razvi and other counsel for applicants have referred to a case of Division Bench in the case of Abdul Majeed v. Judge Special Court (Offences in Banks), reported in 1985 PCr.LJ 890 and in case of Allied Bank of Pakistan v. Khalid Farooq reported in 1991 SCM R 599 and has also referred to an unreported order of Division Bench of this Court in Criminal Bail Application No,1215 of 2002 (Abdul Rasheed v. The State PLD 2003 Kar. 682). There is no cavil with the proposition that powers for grant of bail are co-extenso. Learned counsel for applicant has further prayed that this Court has jurisdiction to allow bail in a scheduled offence. It is pointed out by Mr. Rasheed A. Razvi that applicant Safia Bano is an employee of Federation and was working as a Secretary to Sindh Workers Welfare Board, where the plots were allotted to the workers through ballots and the process of allotment to individual worker was completed in December, 1990 and thereafter in the year 1996 some were illegally allotted to the employees of the Board in violation of the provisions.
2. Mr. Razvi further contended that an enquiry was conducted on complaint made by Mr. Muhammad Khurshid, General Secretary, Pakistan Trade Union, Karachi against Mr. Salahuddin Mughal, Secretary, Sindh Workers Welfare Board and there was a finding of enquiry committee that the allegations are of serious nature and it was recommended that formal enquiry was conducted in order to corroborate the allegations so that the facts be ascertained in respect of the guilt of the officials. Mr. Nuruddin Sarki has contended that in pursuance of the complaint against Salahuddin Mughal, the then Secretary, Sindh Workers Welfare Board, it was alleged that his entry in service with false names and documents and his indulgence in corruption and misappropriation of fund in distribution of Marriage Grant in Aid to Workers and issuance of illegal and bogus allotment of plots in Labour Colony Korangi, Karachi, but all of a sudden F.I.R. Has been registered on enquiry conducted by the Labour and Transport Department to probe the matter on complaint of one Mr. Khursheed on 5-10-2002 with mala fide intention. Mr. S. Raza Ali Abidi submits that the applicants Haji Fazal-ur-Rehman and Muhammad Iqbaluddin are poor labourers and they are working as Estate Agent as a part-time business and they have been dragged in this matter without any roll in the alleged scandal of plots. It is admitted fact with regard to the powers of this Court and the Court of Session while dealing with sections 496, 498 of the Criminal Procedure Code. It has been held that Court can grant bail if accused is placed under actual custody or appears in answer to a process issued or is brought before the Court. The present case is still at the stage of investigation by the Anti-Corruption Police and there is serious apprehension of their arrest and applicants have prayed for anticipatory bail. The provision of section 498 occupies the position of a supplementary provision insofar as it confers not only concurrent but revisional powers on the High Court and the Court of Session in respect of grant or refusal of bail by subordinate Courts and police and enable these Courts to exercise the powers of anticipatory bail in suitable cases, as observed in the case of Allied Bank of Pakistan v. Khalid Farooq. The objection raised by the office as well as the by the State Counsel is not sustainable, therefore, the same is overruled. In view of the rule laid down in the case of The State v. Malik Mukhtar Ahmed Awan reported in 1991 SCM R 322, it is held as under:- "It is a matter essentially of propriety and not of law that a person accused of an offence should in the first instance move the Court of Session for pre-arrest bail before approaching the High Court.
3. Considering the circumstances of this case it is not possible to hold that the High Court made an error, requiring interference by this Court, in directly entertaining the application of the respondent." - The applicants have placed material on record to show that they have been involved in this case falsely due to the departmental jealousy and ulterior motive of vested interest in the Board against whom the applicants had made certain reports of misdeed, irregularities and misappropriation of funds. The interim pre-arrest bail granted earlier to applicants is confirmed. They are allowed to remain on bail on the same terms. The applicants are directed to cooperate during the investigation as and when they are required to do so. Above criminal bail applications are disposed of.