' SH. RIAZ AHMAD, C J.- This order shall dispose of both the captioned petitions emanating from a common judgment, dated 26th of March, 2003, whereby a learned Division Bench of the Lahore High Court dismissed both the writ petitions preferred on behalf of petitioner for the grant of post- arrest bail with the observation that petitioner's trial was likely to be concluded within in a period of five/six months.
2. Petitioner was proceeded against by NAB by having embezzled huge amounts in collusion with certain bankers. It is alleged that petitioner had received Rs, four crores, out of which an amount of Rs,65 lacs has been recovered from him. It is submitted that his house worth Rs,30 lacs had also been attached by NAB, and it was also brought to our notice that an other house that was purchased in the name of his wife had also been attached and his wife was also arrayed as an accused person. Car of the petitioner was also auctioned. It is stated that 11 persons had been arrayed as accused, two of them are still absconding, seven are on bail and one of them has not been arrested so far. Petitioner was arrested on 6-4-2001, and since then he is behind the bars whereas Reference was filed against him on 4-3-2003 after the lapse of about two years time.
Petitioner had moved the High Court and his petition was dismissed on merits whereas his subsequent writ petitions were dismissed on the ground that his trial was going to be concluded within in a period five/six months.
3. On a query made by this Court, Mr. Muhammad Baseer Qureshi, Advocate Supreme Court stated on behalf of the NAB that subsequent to the filing of Reference, trial could not proceed because of the filing of the miscellaneous application and some of the accused were absenting themselves from the trial Court.
4. As regards filing of application under section 265-K, Criminal Procedure Code, it is the legal right of an accused to do so and it does not hold the hands of the Court to proceed with the trial. As far as absence of the accused is concerned, trial Court can very well look into this matter by cancelling the bail at any stage on account of deliberate absence of the accused.
5. Prima facie, out of the total embezzled sum, an amount of Rs,65lacs has been recovered from the petitioner. As far as legal position is concerned, we may refer to the provision of section 24 of the National Accountability Bureau Ordinance, 1999, which is reproduced as under : "(a) ..........................................................................................................................
(b) ........................................................................................................................
(c) ........................................................................................................................
(d) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code, where the holder of a public office or any other person accused of an offence is arrested by NAB under this Ordinance, NAB shall as soon as may be, inform him of the grounds and substance on the basis of which he has been arrested and produce him before the Court within a period of twenty-four hours of arrest excluding the time necessary for the journey from the place of arrest to the Court and such person shall having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, be liable to be detained in the custody of NAB for the purpose of inquiry and investigation for a period not exceeding ninety days (and the Court may remand an accused person to custody not exceeding fifteen days at a time and for every subsequent remand, the Court shall record reasons in writing copy of which shall be sent to the High Court.)"
6. Perusal of the above provision of law clearly envisages that a person cannot be detained for purposes of investigation/inquiry for a period not exceeding 90 days and for every remand, reasons have to be recorded. Petitioner is in the judicial lock-up, and no Reference could be filed by NAB over a period of about two long years. No doubt, as pointed out by learned counsel for NAB that Reference has been filed on 4-3-2003, but again no progress whatsoever has taken place towards the conclusion of petitioner's trial despite lapse of a considerable time. Admittedly petitioner was arrested on 6-4-2001 and is in continuous detention over a period of 25 months and cannot be allowed to be detained for an indefinite period. Therefore, we are of the considered view that it is a fit case that warrants interference by this Court. Accordingly, we convert these petitions into appeal, and allow the same with direction that petitioner Arif Sharif shall be released on bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs,ten million with one surety in the like amount in each Reference to the satisfaction of the trial Court.