ABDUL WAHEED SIDDIQUI vs THE STATE
The applicant sought post-arrest bail in a corruption and forgery case arising from FIR No. 20 of 2003 registered under Sections 409, 420, 468, 471, 161, and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code read with Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1947. The bail plea was previously declined by the trial court and the High Court in 2003. The core legal question was whether the applicant was entitled to bail on merits given his distinct role as the main beneficiary of the alleged land fraud, and whether unauthenticated medical documents justified post-arrest bail. The Sindh High Court held that the applicant's role was distinguishable from co-accused as the proprietor of the construction firm involved in occupying and fraudulently transferring government land, and that the medical documents produced were stale and unauthenticated. The court dismissed the bail application, ruling that no case for bail was made out on merits or medical grounds, while granting liberty to the applicant to approach the trial court for assessment through a Medical Board if warranted.
- Whether an accused who is the main beneficiary of a fraudulent land allotment scheme is entitled to post-arrest bail on the rule of consistency with co-accused having lesser roles?
- Do unauthenticated and stale medical documents suffice for the grant of post-arrest bail on medical grounds?
- Can an accused apply for bail before the trial court on fresh medical grounds evaluated by a Medical Board after the dismissal of a bail petition by the High Court?
- Section 409, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 420, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 468, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 471, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 161, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 5(2), Prevention of Corruption Act 1947
ORDER
1. ' The applicant is facing trial before the learned Special Judge Anti-Corruption Establishment Karachi in a Special Case. No.19 of 2003 came out of F.I.R bearing No.20 of 2003 registered for offences under. Sections 409/420/468/471/161/34, p.p.c read with section 5(2)41-4. 1947 registered with P.S. Anti-Corruption.
2. ' The bail plea of the applicant was declined by learned Special Judge Anti-Corruption (Provincial)
3. Karachi vide his order dated 7th July, 2007. -Earlier, lie, along .With other co-accused, was also refised for grant of bail by this Court vide, a detailed order dated 20-11-2003 passed in Criminal Bail Applications Nos.678 and 739 of 2003, hence I do not think it necessary to mention the facts of the case. However, I have heard and considered the arguments of the learned counsel for the applicant as well as the learned counsel appearing for the State minutely perused the record and have also gone through the case-law, cited at the bar.
4. ' So. Far the merits. I am fully agreed with the following observations of the learned trial Court that:- -- ' The role of applicant/accused is not same as that of co-accused. He is the. Proprietor of Wirsa Construction which has allegedly occupied 32 acres of land owned by Government and after forgering the record by official accused same was transferred/allotted td private. Persons Haji Nazir, Imam Bux and others from whom applicant/ accused through an agreement is said to have purchased the same and thus applicant/accused is the, main beneficiary of this alleged: fraud of Govt. Land while accusedBena Khan and Najum from whom the record was taken by way of raid are the Director and Recovery Officer .Of the Wirsa Construction to which applicant/accused is proprietor and thus it 'cannot be said that case of present accused on same footing to that of accused is the main accused who even without waiting for decision of suit filed by him has introduced housing scheme and received crores of rupees from public for... Allotting the plots.
5. While taking into consideration the medical ground, it may be observed here that except supreme photostat copies o prescriptions. ECG Reports and Admission Slips, perusal of which also reveals that those documents pertain to the year 2000 and no fresh document or report of an authenticated Medical Officer .Is placed on record to support the contention of the learned counsel, hence this ground also does not support the plea of bail of the applicant.
6. ' In view of above. I am not inclined to grant bail to the applicant and dismiss this bail application.
7. ' The applicant is at liberty to apply to the trial Court for referring him to a Medical Board through which he can be diagnosed and if it comes on record through the report of Medical Board that applicant is actually serious heart patient and his further detention in iail will be harmful to his life, the learned trial Court can consider the bail plea of the applicant on medical ground. Further more, the learned trial Court is directed to expedite the disposal of this case which relates to the year 2003.
8. ' With the above observations. Stands disposed of along with both the listed-applications.