2017 P Cr. L J 53
[Balochistan]
Before Mrs. Syeda Tahira Safdar and Muhammad Ejaz Swati, JJ
ALI BAKHSH BALOCH and others ---Petitioners
Versus
The STATE through D.G. NAB and others ---Respondents
C. P. No. 740 of 2014, 424 and 437 of 2015, decided on 14th June, 2016.
National Accountability Ordinance (XVIII of 1999) ---
----S. 9(a)(vi) & (b) ---Pre-arrest bail, refusal of ---Misuse of authority ---Mala fide ---Proof ---
Petitioners were government officials who were alleged to be involved in embezzlement of
wheat stored in godown ---Plea raised by petitioners was that they had been involved due to mala
fide---Validity ---Mala fides, if asserted must be specifically alleged in petition to establish an
exceptional case in favour of person approached for relief of antic ipatory bail ---Such
requirement was missing and allegations against petitioners were of misuse of authority,
negligence and violation of law, non -performance of their duties ---Accumulated result of such
acts was embezzlement and misappropriation of wheat a nd causing loss of millions of rupees to
government exchequer ---High Court declined to grant pre -arrest bail to petitioners ---
Constitutional petition was dismissed in circumstances.
Rana Muhammad Arshad v. Muhammad Rafiq PLD 2009 SC 427; Ali Muhammad
Baloch v. The State 2015 YLR 666; 2004 MLD 203; Hidayatullah Khan v. Crown PLD 1947
Lahore 21; PLD 1998 SC 97; Muhammad Sardar v. The State 1983 SCMR 645; Murad Khan v.
Fazal Subhan PLD 1981 Lah. 599 and State v. Kabeer Khan PLD 2005 SC 364 ref.
Zia-ul-Hassa n v. The State PLD 1984 SC 192 rel.
Sardar Ahmed Haleemi for Petitioner and Petitioner present.
Riaz Akhtar Tareen, Additional Prosecutor General for the State.
Date of hearing: 16th May, 2016.
ORDER
MRS. SYEDA TAHIRA SAFDAR, J. ---Constitutional Petiti on No.740 of 2014, (Ali
Bakhsh Baloch v. The State through DG NAB), Constitutional Petition No.424 of 2015, (Abdul
Wali Kakar v. The State and another) and Constitutional Petition No.437 of 2015, (Asfand Yar
Khan Kakar v. Accountability Court and another), filed by the petitioners for same relief i.e.
grant of pre -arrest bail in their favour in case pursuant to NAB Reference No.1 of 2015 filed by
the National Accountability Bureau (NAB) before the Accountability Court at Quetta, intended
to be decided by th is common order to avoid any conflict in the findings.
2. The brief facts as contained in the case files that initially all the three petitioners
approached this Court to admit them to pre -arrest bail in cases pertaining to Inquiry Nos.7383,
7025 and 6679, as they apprehended their arrest. The facts evident from the order sheets
maintained in the case files that ad interim bail was granted to Ali Bakhsh Baloch in
Constitutional Petition No.740 of 2014 vide order dated 21st October, 2014. While the petitione r
Abdul Wali Kakar was admitted to ad -interim bail vide order dated 8th May, 2015 in.
Constitutional Petition No.424 of 2015. While ad interim bail was granted to the petitioner
Asfand Yar Khan Kakar on 12th May, 2015 in Constitutional Petition No.437 of 2 015. The
petitions remained pending for one reason or the other, while the concessions granted were
extended in favour of the petitioners time and again. During pendency it was brought into the
notice of the Court that on finalization of the investigation with required approval the Reference
filed before the Accountability Court -II, Balochistan, Quetta, which had taken the cognizance of
the offence. The question arises about maintainability of the instant petitions. Meanwhile, the
petitioners requested to a llow them to amend the petitions by filing applications to the effect.
They were allowed to amend, thus the amended petitions were filed with the relief in the terms
that "petitioners may be granted bail before arrest in Reference No.01 of 2015 arising out of
inquiry No. 6679 pending before the Accountability Court -II, Balochistan, Quetta." Thus the
request of the petitioners now confined to the Reference No.1 of 2015.
3. The facts as collected from the papers on the record that the matter pertains to
embez zlement of wheat from PR Centre Chaman, District Killa Abdullah. The petitioners
described to have direct involvement in affairs of the referred Centre, and they were bound to
manage the affairs as prescribed by the Rules and regulations. The petitioner Al i Bakhsh Baloch
the then Secretary, Food Department, Government of Balochistan at the relevant time, while
Abdul Wali Kakar was the then Director Food, Government of Balochistan, and Asfand Yar
Khan Kakar was the then Provincial Minister Food. While one Ha seen Khan Afridi was In -
charge of PR Centre Chaman at the relevant time. All the four were called for the purpose of
inquiry. Call up notices as required under section 19 read with section 27 of the National
Accountability Ordinance, 1999 (N.A.O., 1999) we re issued to all concerned for the purpose.
Three of the petitioners approached this Court, as they apprehended their arrest in the referred
case. The inquiry was initiated initially against one Muhammad Haseen Khan Afridi, In -charge
PR Centre Chaman, in c ase No.6679, but the petitioners were associated in the inquiry at a
subsequent stage when the investigation started. Thus on completion they (petitioners) along
with Muhammad Haseen Khan Afridi were booked in the Reference as accused, presently before
the trial court.
4. Reference No.1 of 2015 was with the facts that on several complaints, and other
information inquiry was held against the persons, four in numbers including the three petitioners
and Muhammad Haseen Khan Afridi. They were found involved in the embezzlement of
government wheat worth millions of rupees from the PR Centre Chaman, District Killa Abdullah
and PR Centre Chaman at Pishin. The Reference filed on finalization of inquiry and investigation
contained the details of the embezzled wheat i n para No.4, reproduction would be beneficial for
better understanding of the issue in hand:
S
# Description Quantity Amount
a Amount of embezzled
wheat Rs. 23.75 per
Kg. 10120385
Kgs Rs. 24,03,59,143/ -
b Amount in E.G. Bags
@ Rs.130 per E.G.
Bags. 100387 E.G.
Bags Rs. 1,30,50,310/ -
c Amount of incidental
charges @ Rs.390 per
100 Kg Bags. 101203
Bags. Rs. 3,94,691,170/ -
Total amount embezzled (Rupees) Rs. 29,28,78,623/ -
Total amount embezzled (Millions) Rs. 292,878/ -
While para No. 6 of the Reference contained the gist of the allegations against the
accused. It was to the effect:
"That the evidence collected during investigation has established that the accused
Muhammad Haseen Khan Afridi, District Food Controller, Ex -Incharge P RC Chaman in
connivance with other co -accused embezzled 100387 bags of government wheat worth
Rs.292.878 million which resulted in huge loss to the State exchequer which is
cognizable and punishable under section 9(a)(iii)(vi) (x) (xii) read with section 1 0 of
N.A.O., 1999."
The petitioners were booked in the case for the offences under section 9(a)(iii), (vi), (ix)
and (xi) National Accountability Ordinance, 1999 (N.A.O., 1999) punishable under section 10 of
N.A.O., 1999. The Final Investigation Report an nexed with the Reference specified the liabilities
against each of the persons booked in the case. The Investigation Report reveals that during the
questioned period i.e. September 2009 to December 2012 Muhammad Haseen Khan Afridi was
performing his duties as In -charge PR Centre Chaman, while the petitioners Ali Bakhsh Baloch
was the Secretary Food Department, and Abdul Wali Kakar remained posted in PR Centre
Chaman as Director Food. While Asfand Yar Khan was holding portfolio of Provincial Minister
Food. I t was the period when the alleged embezzlement took place.
5. According to the Reference the act on part of the petitioner Abdul Wali Kakar the then
Director Food, Government of Balochistan was shifting of 20;000 (twenty thousand) wheat bags
from PR Centre Spiny Road Quetta to PR Centre Chaman without any demand from the
concerned quarter, as the quota of wheat for six months was already available at PR Centre
Chaman District Killa Abdullah, and there was no solid reason for shifting more wheat bags
from Qu etta to Chaman. Non -taking of timely action against Muhammad Haseen Khan Afridi
about his willful absence, and other illegal activities, keeping the post of Deputy Director Food
Quetta vacant during his tenure, division of PR Centre Chaman into two parts i .e. PR Centre
Chaman District Killa Abdullah and PR Centre Chaman at Pishin without any valid reason, non -
raising of objection on frequent transfer/posting orders of Muhammad Haseen Khan Afridi,
which were six times in a year, were the further acts alleged on part of the petitioner (Abdul Wali
Khan).
6. The petitioner Ali Bakhsh Baloch, the then Secretary, Food Department, Government of
Balochistan was booked for an act of criminal negligence, non -performance of the duties as
required by the Rules of Busine ss, Government of Balochistan, in his capacity as of Secretary,
the administrative head of the Department, further to keep vacant the posts of Additional
Director Food, Pishin and Deputy Director Food, Quetta without any justifiable reason, and
reluctant t o take timely action despite having information about the acts on part of Muhammad
Haseen Khan Afridi, nor objected on his (Haseen Khan Afridi) transfer and posting orders, six
times in a year, further, the act of keeping the posts vacant facilitated the a ct of embezzlement.
7. The petitioner Asfand Yar Khan Kakar, the then Minister Food, Government of
Balochistan, was implicated in commission of the act with the allegations that Additional
Director Food Akbar Ali Changaizi was though transferred, but no on e was appointed on his
place, while due to non -appointment to the post, the required inspection was not made in due
time, resulted in the embezzlement of the stock in the PRC Chaman. Further, the transfer and
posting of Muhammad Haseen Khan Afridi was dire cted from his (Asfand Yar Khan Kakar)
orders, facilitated him (Muhammad Haseen Khan Afridi) in commission of the act. In addition to
probe the illegalities and embezzlement Inquiry Committees were constituted by the then
Secretary, Food Department Balochis tan, but on his (Asfand Yar Khan Kakar) directions the
committees were abolished on 28th February 2012, while non -constitution of new committees
facilitated the act of embezzlement. Further, 50,000 wheat bags were shifted from PR Centre
Spiny Road, Quetta to PR Centre Chaman District Killa Abdullah on direction of the petitioner
(Asfand Yar Khan Kakar) without any demand resulted in embezzlement of the transmitted
wheat.
8. The case of the fourth accused Muhammad Haseen Khan Afridi would be dealt
separately , who applied for his post arrest bail.
9. The above noted details described the main allegation against the petitioners was of non -
performance of their duties as determined by the Rules of Business, Government of Balochistan,
resulted in embezzlement of h uge amount of wheat, and the act caused heavy loss to the
government exchequer.
10. The learned counsel for the petitioner Ali Bakhsh Baloch in Constitutional Petition
No.740 of 2014 referred to the papers available in the case file in detail, and maintain ed that
none of the papers connect the petitioner Ali Bakhsh Baloch in commission of the act of
embezzlement of wheat, nor any act on his part which resulted in the alleged embezzlement. It
was stated that criminal liability was only against Muhammad Hasee n Khan Afridi, and the FIR
was lodged against him (Muhammad Haseen Khan Afridi), while none else was implicated in the
referred case. The mala fides on part of the NAB resulted in his implication in the Reference in
hand, despite the fact he had already re linquished the charge on 15th September, 2012. While the
Notification of his retirement was also issued in November 2012. It was stated that the
allegations as contained in the final Investigation. Report unable to constitute an offence under
section 9 of the National Accountability Ordinance 1999 to the extent of the petitioner (Ali
Bakhsh Baloch).
11. The learned counsel for the petitioner Abdul Wali Kakar in Constitutional Petition
No.424 of 2015 stated that the role assigned to the petitioner unable to constitute an offence
under the National Accountability Ordinance 1999. He further stated that the petitioner
relinquished the charge in January 2012, while the act of embezzlement was unearthed in March
2012, after relinquishment of his charge thus due to the fact of relinquishment prior to tracing of
the act, the possibility of commission of the act on part of the officer who succeeded him (Abdul
Wali Khan Kakar), thus could be held liable for the act of embezzlement. It was also found
support from the fa ct that till May 2014, during the course of inquiry the name of the petitioner
nowhere appeared, but in the final Report he was arraigned as an accused. In addition FIR was
registered under the Anti -Corruption Laws, and no role was assigned to him (Abdul W ali Kakar).
It was stated that there was no violation of the Food Manual on his part, nor the Rules of the
Business of the Government of Balochistan were violated. Thus the Reference failed to describe
any act of money corruption, thus not covered by secti on 9 of the National Accountability
Ordinance, 1999.
12. The learned counsel for the petitioner Asfand Yar Khan in Constitutional Petition No.437
of 2015 was of the view that there was no allegation against the petitioner neither of
misappropriation or of embezzlement either of money or wheat. While no deficiency in the stock
of wheat was recorded on his part. Further, there was no evidence to connect him -in commission
of the act as alleged. All the three learned counsel were of the view that it was a case of further
inquiry, as they were implicated without assigning specific roles, while no case on merit was
made out on basis of the available material. The completion of investigation, and their non -
requirement for the purpose further pressed which entitled them for the concession. The prayer
was for confirmation of the ad interim bail allowed to them on filing of the petitions in hand.
13. The learned Additional Prosecutor General NAB in reply stated that though the Inquiry
conducted fixed the liability onl y on Muhammad Haseen Khan Afridi, but the facts transpired
during the course of inquiry conducted by the NAB that there was serious negligence, and failure
to exercise the authority on part of the petitioners, which not only facilitated, but as a
consequen ce thereof the act of embezzlement of wheat was taken place during the tenure when
the petitioners hold the offices in the Food Department. While one of them was the Food
Minister, who also failed to adopt the legal course, rather issued directions frequen tly for transfer
and posting of Muhammad Haseen Khan Afridi on the post of In -charge PR Centre Chaman,
which was never objected by the Secretary or by the Director Food, thus they all facilitated
Muhammad Haseen Khan Afridi to commit the act on his part. T he learned Additional
Prosecutor General NAB further stated that as a joint petition was filed in three distinct inquiries
which could not be entertained, rather separate applications for the purpose were required to be
filed. He referred to the judgments reported in:
Rana Muhammad Arshad v. Muhammad Rafiq
PLD 2009 SC 427
Ali Muhammad Baloch v. The State
2015 YLR 666
No citation found
2004 MLD 203
14. The learned counsel for the petitioners in reply asserted that the mala fides on part of the
NAB quite evident from the record. Further, without recording of evidence liability of each of
the petitioner could not be determined. While absence of any evidence to connect the petitioners
in commission of the act of misappropriation of wheat further entitl ed them for the concession.
15. The petitioners approached this Court for anticipatory bail in their favour while
contending that they were implicated in commission of the alleged act without any substance.
For the relief claimed i.e. concession of bail. S ections 497 and 498, Cr.P.C. would be relevant, as
the sections deal with release of an accused person on bail, and for issuance of a direction to
admit an accused on bail. Section 497, Cr.P.C. enumerated the instances on basis whereof a
person can be rele ased on bail, the existence of reasonable grounds and other attending
circumstances if available would be basis for exercise of the discretion lies with the court in the
offences non bailable in nature. The referred provisions' deal with post arrest bail, but silent
about release of a person on bail before his arrest. The honorable Supreme Court in number of
judgments settled the principle while dealing with the relief of anticipatory bail in favour of a
person apprehended his arrest for an offence non bail able in nature. Thus the cases in hand are to
be assessed on the principles already settled by the apex Court.
16. The basic judgment on the point was in case of Hidayatullah Khan v. Crown, reported in
PLD 1947 Lahore 21, whereby it was held:
"For the reas ons given above, the reply which I would give to the question referred to us
is that, in a proper case, the High Court has power under section 498, Criminal Procedure
Code, to make an order that a person who is suspended of an offence for which he may
be arrested by a police officer or a Court, shall be admitted to bail. The exercise of this
power should, however, be confined to cases in which, not only is good prima facie
ground made out for the grant of bail in respect of the offence alleged, but also, it should
be shown that if the petitioner were to be arrested and refused bail, such an order would,
in all probability be made not from motives of furthering the ends of justice in relation to
the case, but from some ulterior motive, and with the object of injuring the petitioner, or
that the petitioner would in such an eventuality suffers irreparable harm."
17. In view thereof the existence of a prima facie case for grant of bail in favour of an
accused in respect of the alleged offence is the basic require ment, in addition thereto the second
principle would be that in case of his arrest the motive would not to meet the ends of justice, but
with some ulterior motive, and it was with an object to injure and harm him, which must be
shown to be irreparable in n ature. The conditions precedent for grant of anticipatory bail
mandatory for making an order to the effect. Thus the intended arrest must be shown, rather
establish to be tainted with mala fides, and in this context the second condition of irreparable
harm has to be viewed. In view of the settled principles it would be the petitioners who when
approached the court for the purpose have to establish that their involvement in the cases based
on mala fides on part of the prosecution. Thus apart from ulterior mo tive, the elements consisting
of humiliation and unjustified harassment would also be the main ingredients for pre -arrest bail.
The honourable Supreme Court in judgment reported in PLD 1998 SC 97 held that "for the
proposition that apprehension of arrest o f an accused being for ulterior motive, for example, that
of humiliation and unjustified harassment is a sine qua non for pre -arrest bail."
18. Thus in case in hand it is the petitioners who have to establish the ulterior motive on part
of the NAB, who has initiated the proceedings against them (petitioners). The investigation had
already been completed and the Reference is before the Accountability Court. The judgment of
the honourable Supreme Court in case of Muhammad Sardar v. The State (1983 SCMR 645)
would be an help to meet with the situation. It was held:
"The submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioners overlook the fact that
bail before arrest is not the rule in cognizable offences, and is to be allowed only when it
can be shown that the petitioner apprehends arrest due to some ulterior motives on the
part of the authorities or other influential persons, or there are some peculiar features of
the case which would justify the exercise of this discretionary power by the High Court
or the Sessions Court. In the present case, no such features appear to be present. An
incident has admittedly taken place between the parties, in which the petitioners are
accused of having caused injuries to Muhammad Sadiq of the opposite party. In the
normal c ourse of criminal law the petitioners can legitimately ask for bail only after their
arrest and not before arrest."
The principles as laid down in Hidayatullah Khan's case were further approved in case of
Murad Khan v. Fazal Subhan, reported in PLD 1981 L ahore 599:
"The criteria laid down in Hidayat Ullah Khan's case has not undergone any change so
far. The three principles laid down therein have to be strictly followed. This power should
sparingly be exercised in appropriate cases. The Courts should stric tly avoid the exercise
of this power at random, which is likely to embarrass the prosecution in investigation as
usually is the general complaint. The balance has to be kept and each case has to be dealt
with on its own merits.... The Court should seriousl y apply its mind before passing the
order of pre -arrest bail. I must, however, make it clear that Courts are the guardians of
liberty, of citizens. The abuse of power by the police to rope in innocent persons in order
to humiliate them and to cause irrepar able loss to their reputation should be equally kept
in view. The golden principles in Hidayat Ullah Khan's case must strictly be followed."
Thus criteria for grant of post arrest bail is quite different from pre -arrest bail. The
honourable Supreme Court in its judgment recorded in case of Rana Muhammad Arshad
v. Muhammad Rafiq PLD 2009 SC 427 enumerate parameters which are to be observed
while allowing the relief of pre -arrest bail to an accused. It was held:
"9. Ever since then, the said i nterpretation so made, the said powers so found and the
parameters so prescribed, have been regularly and repeatedly coming up for scrutiny by
the Superior Courts including this Court. But each time the matter was re -examined, the
same was only re -affirmed . The said concept as it was initially propounded; as it
developed and the same stands today, may be summarized for the benefit of us all as
under:
(a) grant of bail before arrest is an extraordinary relief to be granted only in extraordinary
situations to protect innocent persons against victimization through abuse of law for
ulterior motives;
(b) pre -arrest bail is not to be used as a substitute or as an alternative for post -arrest bail;
(c) bail before arrest cannot be granted unless the person seeking i t satisfies the
conditions specified through subsection (2) of section 497 of Code of Criminal Procedure
i.e. unless he establishes the existence of reasonable grounds leading to a belief that he
was not guilty of the offence alleged against him and that t here were, in fact, sufficient
grounds warranting further inquiry into his guilt;
(d) not just this but in addition thereto, he must also show that his arrest was being sought
for ulterior motive, particularly on the part of the police; to cause irreparabl e humiliation
to him and to disagree and dishonour him;
(e) such a petitioner should further establish that he had not done or suffered any act
which would disentitle him to a discretionary relief in equity i.e. he had no past criminal
record or that he ha d not been a fugitive at law; and finally that;
(f) in the absence of a reasonable and a justifiable cause, a person desiring his admission
to bail before arrest, must in the first instance approach the Court of first instant i.e. the
Court of Session, bef ore petitioning the High Court for the purpose."
In view thereof the petitioners have to establish their cases on the criteria already settled.
A power surely available to a High Court to make an order that a person be admitted to bail
before he is actual ly arrested, should be restricted to exceptional cases, the facts whereof
satisfied the described conditions. In the cases in hand the Reference had already been submitted
by the NAB, and the trial court had taken cognizance of the offence. Thus the matter pertains to a
special law, thus to be dealt as required. The honorable Supreme Court in case State v. Kabeer
Khan, reported in PLD 2005 SC 364 dealt with the cases under National Accountability
Ordinance 1999, guidance would be taken therefrom. It was hel d:
"9. Now turning towards the case arising out of Writ Petition No.20214 of 2002 wherein
respondent had sought bail before arrest in Reference No. 38 of 2002. It is to be noted
that under the NAB Ordinance there is no provision for grant of bail before ar rest,
therefore, this Court while examining the vires of 9(b) of the NAB Ordinance in the case
of Khan Asfandyar Wali (ibid) took view that High Court shall exercise this power
sparingly in rare and exceptional circumstances for valid reasons to be recorde d in
writing. In this behalf reference can also be made to the case of Meeran Bux v. The State
PLJ 1986 (sic) 526 and Murad Khan v. Fazal -e-Subhan and another PLD 1983 SC 82. As
such we are of the opinion that the powers for grant of bail conferred by this Court has to
be exercised strictly keeping in view the observations made therein but it seems that the
learned High Court had not recorded reasons indicating the exceptional circumstances for
extraordinary Constitutional jurisdiction in favour of responde nt particularly in the case
in which the accused had not been arrested and no ground of mala fide for bail before
arrest has been attributed to the prosecution in the memo of Petition."
The petitioners pressing for the relief of bail pre -arrest, while con tending that the material
on the record unable to make out a case of misuse of their authority on their part and their direct
involvement in commission of the alleged act, with addition non mentioning of specific role, thus
brought their case within the am bit of further inquiry, thus their implication was without any
cogent and solid reason. Most of the grounds taken in the petitions pertained to the facts of the
case, and the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioners also revolved around the
factual aspect of the case. No specific plea of mala fides on the part of the NAB was taken, nor
their apprehended arrest would humiliate them or cause irreparable harm was their case. Nothing
asserted that they were involved in the case only to victimize the m through abuse of process of
law for ulterior motives, and the object to implicate them in the case was to harm them. To the
contrary the grounds taken in the petitions and also pressed by the learned counsel restricted to
the grounds available for post a rrest bail.
In addition to what has been discussed hereinabove an established principle that the mala
fides if asserted must be specifically alleged in the petition to establish an exceptional case in
favour of a person approached for the relief of antici patory bail. This requirement is missing in
the cases in hand. The allegations against the petitioners were of misuse of authority, negligence
and violation of law and non -performance of their duties and the accumulated result of the acts
was embezzlement and misappropriation of the wheat, caused loss millions of rupees to the
government exchequer. Deep appreciation of the material was not required at this stage, as it
would prejudice the case of either of the parties, the petitioners or the NAB, thus avoid ed. An act
of corruption and corrupt practices which covered by section 9(a) clause (vi) of N.A.O., 1999
alleged against the petitioners. The material on the record a prima facie case made out against
them. It was also due to the fact that they were admitt edly office holders of the Food Department
at the relevant time when the act was committed, while one of them i.e. Asfand Yar Khan Kakar
holding the portfolio of Minister of Food. The frequent transfers and posting of an official of a
lower grade at higher post, who was arraigned as main offender, whose part of act not denied by
the petitioners though with different explanations, which could only be assessed after calling for
the evidence and its evaluation. The attending circumstances tentatively showed st ate of mind
and mens rea on part of the petitioners sufficient enough to involve them in commission of the
offence. No exceptional grounds or extraordinary situations were shown, nor asserted in the
petitions for exercise of the powers available to this Co urt to admit the petitioners on bail before
their arrest, even when the plea of mala fides and victimization through abuse of law for ulterior
motives on part of prosecution is missing. The honourable Supreme Court in its judgment
recorded in Zia -ul-Hassan v. The State, reported in PLD 1984 SC 192 held that:
"--- The Court has no power to grant bail before arrest unless all the conditions laid down
by the superior Courts from time to time are satisfied, the most essential of them all being
that the intended arrest would be tainted with mala fides which must be specifically
stated. ---".
In view of the above discussion no case is made out for anticipatory bail, thus the
Constitutional Petition No. 740 of 2014, (Ali Bakhsh Baloch v. The State through DG NAB),
Constitutional Petition No. 424 of 2015, (Abdul Wali Kakar v. The State and another), and
Constitutional Petition No. 437 of 2015, (Asfand Yar Khan Kakar v. Accountability Court and
another), are hereby dismissed for want of merit. The ad interim bail gran ted to the petitioners
Ali Bakhsh Baloch, Abdul Wali Kakar and Asfand Yar Khan Kakar on 21.10.2014, 8.5.2015 and
12.5.2015 respectively stand withdrawn.
MH/64/Bal. Petitions dismissed.This judgment is reproduced from a publicly available source for informational purposes and does not constitute legal advice. If you believe this listing contains an error,
let us know.