' This criminal petition for leave to appeal has been filed against the order passed by the High Court on 7-4-2003, whereby the ad interim bail allowed to respondents was confirmed.
2. The necessary facts, giving rise to the present petition for leave to appeal, precisely stated, are that a Committee was constituted in the Cadet College, Pallandri, for the purchase of furniture in the year 1996. The Committee comprised of the following:--
(i) Mr. Mumtaz K. Malik, the then Principal, Cadet College, Pallandri, (Chairman).
(ii) Muhammad Hanif Shaikh, Accounts Officer/Burser, (Member).
(iii) Mehboob Ahmed, Site Engineer, (Member).
' The task was assigned to Committee to collect the competitive rates from the manufacturers of furniture from Rawalpindi. In pursuance of above, the Committee collected the rates from three manufacturers/suppliers of furniture, namely:--
(i) Messrs Ittifaque Furniture House, Rawalpindi.
(ii) Messrs Taj Mahal Furniture House, Rawalpindi.
(iii) Messrs Abbasi Furniture House, Rawalpindi.
' After due scrutiny, a purchase order for supply of furniture, comprising of different items was placed to Messrs Abbasi Furniture House, Rawalpindi vide letter bearing No,CCP/52/97, dated 23-5- 1997 amounting to Rs,29,02,751, copy of which is annexed as Annexure "A". In response to the above purchase order, respondent No,2 started supplying the furniture to Cadet College, Pallandri. Upon the receipt of furniture, it transpired that the furniture was not according to the specification rather it was substandard wood which was used for the manufacturing of furniture. It is to be noted that the supplier was supposed to supply the furniture made of "Shisham" wood but he supplied furniture of "Keeker" wood. Upon this a letter bearing No,CCP/366-A/97, dated 23-9-1997 was written to Abbasi Furniture House, Rawalpindi directing him to take back the furniture as the same was substandard but no response was given from respondent No,2, as such when the alleged supplier was contacted, he not only expressed his ignorance about the transaction rather stated that he did not supply any item. He further stated that somebody might have utilized the Firm's name and by way of impersonation obtained the supply order. In the meantime the then M.L.A. Of Sudhnooti, namely, Dr. Najeeb Naqi, invited the attention of the then Federal Minister for Education, Mr. Ghaus Ali Shah, towards the defective furniture and requested for the initiation of criminal proceedings against the culprits after holding an inquiry by F.I.A. Authorities. The Minister incharge in turn referred the matter to F.I.A. Authorities. As the Cadet College,. Pallandri was a concern of Federal Government, as such the indulgence of Federal Investigating Agency was sought.
3. The F.I.A. Proceeded with the inquiry. The Investigating Officer proceeded to the spot at Cadet College, Pallandri and took into possession the relevant record through the recovery memos. The concerned Inquiry Officer also proceeded to manufacturers of furniture who allegedly tendered the quotations for the supply of furniture to Cadet College, Pallandri. The alleged suppliers duly got recorded their statements in this regard. All the three suppliers unanimously stated that no quotation was tendered by them for Cadet College, Pallandri nor any representative of the said College ever visited them.
4. From the initial inquiry a prima facie case was established against the respondents. When the investigation proceeded for some time by F.I.A. Authorities, they in the final round expressed their inability to proceed with the matter and the same was referred to Anti-Corruption Branch, Muzaffarabad vide letter, dated 19-12-2000.
5. The role of respondent No,2 is that of supplier of furniture who in connivance with the other accused forged the quotations and got supply order in his favour. The respondents moved for their pre-arrest bail before the High Court who were granted ad interim bail and ultimately their ad interim bail was confirmed vide the impugned order, dated 7-4-2003 which is the subject-matter of present petition for leave to appeal.
6. In support of petition for leave to appeal it was vehemently contended by Mr. S.A. Mehmood Siddozai, the learned Chief Prosecutor, Ehtesab Bureau, that the High Court has relied upon the testimony of present Principal, Cadet College, Pallandri, and contended that at the relevant time the Principal vide his letter returned the furniture as being defective so how can somebody else come up with the opinion that the furniture is up to mark. The learned counsel contended that it ,has wrongly been held by the High Court that the case of present respondents is at par with the case of Mumtaz K. Mallick and Qamar Zaman, the co-accused. The learned counsel submitted that the pre-arrest bail of accused-respondents was confirmed whereas the co-accused, Mumtaz K.
Mallick and Qamar Zaman, were granted after arrest bail and the principles governing the pre- arrest ana after arrest bail matters are totally different. In pre-arrest bail matters, the learned counsel contended, that one has to show the mala fide treatment with which the accused is being meted but the learned Judge in the High Court failed to take this matter into consideration and thus a great miscarriage of justice has been done. The learned counsel at the last leg of his arguments submitted with vehemence that the respondents are fully connected with the commission of offence of criminal breach and trust, forgery, fraud and impersonation and thus, defrauded the Government Exchequer to the tune of Rs,2.9 millions. The learned counsel also argued that the impugned order is not tenable in the eye of law.
7. In rebuttal Mr. M. Tabassum Aftab Alvi, the learned counsel for the respondents, contended that the respondents have rightly been allowed the concession of bail as according to the learned counsel, the occurrence allegedly took place in 1997, whereas the case was registered in 2002. This fact itself smacks of the mala fide of Ehtesab Bureau. The Minister Incharge, according to the case of prosecution, referred the matter to F.I.A. Who returned the same after conducting a thorough inquiry with the observation that F.I.A. Had no jurisdictional competence to investigate into the matter. For years the accused have been rolling in the uncalled for investigation made by F.I.A. And then by Anti-Corruption Police, Muzaffarabad.
8. The perusal of the record shows that there is a verification of present Principal, Cadet College, Pallandri, Brig. (Rtd.) Muhammad Akbar Khan, that the alleged furniture is still under the use of College and the same is neither defective nor below standard. The High Court for its own satisfaction summoned the Principal Cadet College, Pallandri, Brig. (Rtd.) Muhammad Akbar Khan, who appeared before the Court and stated that he has given verification that the furniture is not below standard and is not defective but is quite good for the use of College and the same is still under the use of College. The Principal has stated in clear terms that the furniture is neither defective nor below standard so it cannot be said with definiteness that the defective furniture was purchased by the respondents. The matter requires further inquiry. Mr. Mumtaz K. Mallick and Mr. Qamar Zaman, the co-accused, have already been allowed bail, I, therefore, see no reason to cancel the bail of accused-respondents. It is a settled principle of law relating to bail matters that once an accused person is granted bail by a Court of competent jurisdiction, it requires a very strong evidence connecting the accused with the commission of alleged non-bailable offence for cancelling his bail. I see no reason to differ with the judicial and lawful discretion exercised by the High Court. The prosecution will however, be at liberty to move afresh for the cancellation of bail of accused-respondents if it succeeds in bringing some plausible material against the accused- respondents connecting them with the commission of alleged offence. It may be done after recording the material evidence of the prosecution.
9. It may also be pointed out that I repeatedly asked the learned Chief Prosecutor, Ehtesab Bureau as to why he insists upon the personal custody of accused-respondents but he failed to point out as to which material was to be recovered at the instance of accused-respondents nor the same has been pointed out in the petition for leave to appeal or argued before the High Court.
' In the view of above, finding no force in this petition for leave to appeal, the same stands disallowed.