MUNEER AHMAD SHEIKH and another vs DIRECTOR-GENERAL NAB KARACHI
This matter arose from two petitions before the Supreme Court of Pakistan, one seeking post-arrest bail and the other seeking pre-arrest bail, after both were declined by the High Court. The petitioners were accused of maneuvering the appointments of their close relatives in the Sindh Technical Education and Vocational Training Authority by bypassing merit. The core legal question was whether the petitioners were entitled to bail when other similarly situated co-accused, including those who conducted inquiries and exonerated them, were neither arrested nor prosecuted, and where another accused with an identical role was granted pre-arrest bail without challenge. The Supreme Court allowed the appeals and granted bail, holding that the law regulating accountability must be applied across the board and not in a lopsided or selective manner. The Court laid down the principle that selective prosecution and unequal application of accountability laws against similarly situated accused persons justify the exercise of judicial discretion to grant bail.
- Whether selective prosecution and the failure to arrest or prosecute similarly situated co-accused persons justify the grant of bail to an accused?
- Can bail be granted where the law regulating accountability is not applied across the board against all alleged accomplices?
- Is an accused entitled to bail if another co-accused with an identical role has been granted bail and the prosecution has not challenged that concession?
EJAZ AFZAL KHAN, J.---Petitioner in Civil Petition No. 1709 of 2017 who was declined post-arrest bail while petitioner in C.P. No.1542 of 2017 who was declined pre-arrest bail by the High Court moved this Court on the grounds that there is nothing on the record to show that they bypassed merit to force way for the appointment of their kith and kin; that they have been exonerated in the inquiries held in this behalf; that many others similarly placed have not been arrested and that when grant of pre-arrest bail to one with similar role has not been questioned, grant of such concession to the petitioners cannot be resisted by the Special Prosecutor with his chin up.
2. The learned Special Prosecutors appearing on behalf of the respondents contended that petitioner in C.P.
1709/17 manoeuvred the appointment of his brother while petitioner in C.P. 1542/17 manoeuvred the appointment of his son by ignoring merit, therefore, they being prima facie connected with a crime attracting prohibitory clause don't deserve the concession of bail.
3. We have carefully gone through the record and considered the submissions of the learned ASCs for the petitioner as well as the learned Special Prosecutors appearing on behalf of the respondent.
4. Both the petitioners have been charged to have manoeuvred the appointment of their kith and kin in the Sindh Technical, Education Vocational Training Authority . The matter had been inquired at the Departmental level but somehow they have been exonerated. They prima facie have a role in the commission of the crime but many others who have been hand in glove with them have neither been pulled in nor hauled up to face the scourge.
Those who held inquiries against the petitioners and their accomplices, and exonerated them also appear to be a part of the cartel bypassing the merit and pushing in their near and dear ones but strangely enough they have not even been interrogated. Many others having similar role have not been arrested. One of the accused whose role is identical to that of the petitioners has been granted pre-arrest bail but no petition has been moved for its recall. In the circumstance, it would be rather unjust to keep the two on the tenterhooks when the law regulating accountability does not appear to have been applied across the board. We, thus, would not like to become a part %of such a lopsided accountability by refusing bail to the petitioners. The more so when, all such appointments have been approved by the person at the peak in the Province.
5. For the reasons discussed above, we convert these petitions into appeals, allow them and direct release of the petitioner in Civil Petition No. 1709 of 2017 if he furnishes bail bonds in the sum of rupees five million with two sureties to the satisfaction of the Trial Court and confirm the bail of the petitioner in Civil Petition No. 1542 of 2017 against the bail bonds already submitted. However , we while parting with the judgment, would desire that the law regulating accountability be applied across the board without seeing the status, stature and station of the person involved.
Cited by 5 cases
- Syed Muhammad Adnan vs The State 2023 PCRLJ 1356
- Ghulam Farooq Channa vs The State 2022 MLD 768
- Shoukat Hussain Jokhio vs The Stae through Chairman NAB & others 2021 PCr.LJ 24, 2020 SHC 434
- SHOUKAT HUSSAIN JOKHIO Versus State 2021 PCrLJ 24
- Ayaz Ahmed Soomro and others vs National Accountability Bureau 2020 P Cr. L J 1273