Abbas Raza and others V. The State through Director General and others,

2018 M L D 2066 [Balochistan] Before Abdullah Baloch and Mrs. Syeda Tahira Safdar, JJ ABBAS RAZA and others ---Petitioners Versus The STATE through Director General and others ---Respondents C.P. No.1004 to 1008, 1010 to 1012 and 1017 of 2017, decided on 30th April, 2018. National Accountability Ordinance ( XVIII of 1999 ) --- ----Ss. 9(a), 10, 18(g) & 24(b) ---Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 199 ---Pre -arrest bail, grant of - --Separate references on identical/same allegations ---Mala fide---Case of further inquiry --- Petitioners being holders of public office were among the accused persons allegedly involved in bogus recruitments of teachers, however separate references were filed by the National Accountability Bureau against them ---Petitioners conten ded that the complainant had filed separate references in order to pressurize and blackmail the accused persons ---High Court had already granted bail to most of the accused persons in other references based on same allegations ---Said references reflected i dentical allegations of bogus recruitments of teachers - --Petitioners had filed application before the Trial Court for consolidation of all references being identical in nature, which application was yet to be decided by the Trial Court ---Trial Court could determine whether or not, all the references pertained to the same period with regard to same allegations ---Such determination would require evidence ---National Accountability Bureau identified appointment of 125 teachers being bogus one, but instead of filing one reference against all accused persons, deliberately and intentionally, filed different references in piecemeal ---Said act of National Accountability Bureau reflected mala fide on its part---Case of the petitioners was of further inquiry ---Pre -arrest bail was allowed to the petitioners in circumstances. Tariq Ali Tahir and Ms. Sarwar Hina for Petitioners (in C.Ps. Nos. 1004 to 1008 of 2017). Adnan Ejaz and Mudassir Nadeem for Petitioners (in C.P. No.1010 of 2017). Muhammad Shabbir Rajput for Peti tioner (in C.P. No.1011 of 2017). Wali Khan Nasir for Petitioner (in C.P. No.1012 of 2017). Arbab Muhammad Tahir for Petitioner (in C.P. No.1017 of 2017). Riaz Akhtar Tareen, Special Prosecutor, NAB for the State. Date of hearing: 17th April, 2018. JUDGMENT ABDULLAH BALOCH, J. ---This common judgment disposes of C.P. No.1004 of 2017, C.P. No.1005 of 2017, C.P. No.1006 of 2017, C.P. No.1007 of 2017, C.P. No.1008 of 2017, C.P. No.1010 of 2017, C.P. No.1011 of 2017, C.P. No.1012 of 2017 and C.P. No.1017 of 2017, filed by the petitioners named above, seeking bail before arrest in Reference No.04 of 2017, filed by the NAB Balochistan before the learned Accountability Court -I, Balochistan. Quetta (hereinafter referred as, "the trial Court" against the petition ers Reference under Section 18(g) read with Section 24(b) of the National Accountability Ordinance, 1999.

2. Facts of the case arc that on 28th September 2017, the NAB Balochistan has filed the above reference before the trial Court with the allegations th at the petitioners being holder of the public offices were serving their duties as Director Education (Schools), Additional Director Education (Schools), Deputy District Education Officer (Male), Senior Auditor, Accounts Officer and Assistant Accounts Offi cer, in the office of Accountant General, Balochistan, Quetta and in Education Department, Balochistan, Quetta, committed corruption and corrupt practices and by misusing their official authority made illegal/bogus appointments as well as facilitated such illegal/bogus appointment of bogus candidates and in this manner caused huge losses of Rs. 15,043,668/ - to the Government Exchequer in the form of salaries paid to them.

3. It is necessary to mention here that after filing of reference the petitioners appr oached this Court for grant of pre -arrest bail, hence accordingly ad -interim pre -arrest bail was granted to them, vide order dated 2nd October, 2017.

4. Learned counsel for petitioners unanimously contended that in respect of same set of allegations pertai ning to illegal/bogus appointments allegedly made in the Education Department Balochistan, the NAB Balochistan has filed a Reference No.11 of 2015 before the trial court and presently the trial is in progress, but in order to pressurize and blackmail the p etitioners the instant reference pertaining to same allegations has been filed, which amounts to double jeopardy and in violation of section 403, Cr.P.C. Section 26 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 and Article 13 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan; that the innocence or guilt of the petitioners is yet to be ascertained, which can only be determined at the conclusion of trial after recording evidence, thus sending the petitioners behind the bars would not serve any fruitful purposes, when ot herwise all the petitioners joined the investigation by providing all the necessary data/information to the Investigating Officer and accordingly after completion of investigation, the reference has been submitted in the trial court, hence after taking cog nizance of the matter the trial Court is proceed to with the matter, as such, they are entitled for confirmation of their ad interim pre -arrest bail.

5. Learned Special Prosecutor, NAB, strongly opposed the arguments so advanced by the learned counsel for petitioners and contended that the petitioners being the officer of Education Department and Accountant General Balochistan Office with the connivance and collusion of each other managed illegal/bogus appointments of certain ineligible candidates and there after they withdrew/facilitated for withdrawal of the bogus employees of the Education Department and in this manner they have caused huge losses to the national exchequer, thus they are not entitled for confirmation of ad- interim pre -arrest bail.

6. Heard the learned counsel and perused the available record. Perusal of record reveals that prior to fling the instant reference, the NAB Balochistan had also initiated inquiries pertaining to illegal/bogus appointments/recruitments of teachers in the Education Department, which were later on converted into investigation and ultimately two separate references bearing Nos. 11/2015 and 09/2016 have been filed. Most of the petitioners have also been arrayed in both the references and they have been granted bail by t his Court. Perusal of all the references would reflect that identical allegations of bogus/illegal recruitment of teachers have been leveled against the petitioners and others. The learned counsel for petitioners have also filed application before the tria l Court for consolidation of all the references being identical in nature and the fate of such application is still awaited. Hence, it is yet to be determined and decided by the learned trial Court that either all the references were filed before it pertai ning to identical allegations of bogus recruitments of teachers and that the allegations containing in all the references pertains to same period and with regard to same bogus teachers involving the same losses caused by the government exchequer alleged in the earlier references or otherwise, thus proving of such facts need evidence. It is also observed that the NAB identified appointment of 125 teachers being bogus one, but instead to file one reference against the all accused persons, deliberately and intentionally filed different/separate references in piecemeal i.e., in reference No.4 of 2017 for appointment of 26 bogus teachers; in reference No.09 of 2016 for seven teachers and in reference No.11 of 2015 4+2=6 teachers, which reflects mala fide at the p art of prosecution, which apparently connect the case of petitioner as of further inquiry. We are also conscious of the fact that the prosecution evidence is comprising of documents which may not be tampered and that sufficient time would be required for c ompletion of trial.

7. Even otherwise, after filing of reference, the learned trial Court has taken cognizance of the matter, whereby charge has been framed and the prosecution is examining its witnesses and moreover there is no complaint came on record that the petitioners are not appearing in the trial Court. The learned Special Prosecutor, NAB was unable to show any extraordinary or cogent circumstance that may be beneficial for the case of prosecution to decline the confirmation of ad -interim bail to th e petitioners rather conceded so.

8. For what has been stated above, we are of the considered view that the petitioners have made out a case for confirmation of their pre -arrest bail, which falls within the ambit of further inquiry. In this view of the matter, these petitions are allowed, consequently the earlier ad -interim bail granted to the petitioners Abbas Raza son of Muhammad Sarwar, Sikandar Alam son of Muhammad Alam, Mushtaq Ahmed son of Eido Bakhsh, Syed Wajahat Shah son of Syed Basharat Hussain , Ehsanullah son of Nasrullah Khan, Ghufran Ahmed son of Khwaja Maqbool Ellahi, Muhammad Farooq son of Abdullah Jan, Nizam -ud- Din son of Kamal -ud-Din and Muhammad Yousaf Khoda son of Khoda Mousa, vide orders dated 2nd October 2017 and 4th October 2017 are hereby confirmed. The surety bonds already submitted shall remain intact. The petitioners are strictly directed to appear in trial proceedings without any fail. The observations made herein above are purely tentative in nature and the same shall not influence the merits of the case. MQ/45/Bal Bail confirmed.