This matter arose from a petition for post-arrest bail filed by the Secretary of a housing society accused in a National Accountability Bureau (NAB) reference of illegally allocating plots and interpolating meeting minutes, causing billions in losses. The core legal question was whether the petitioner could be denied bail on grounds of aggravated role when all co-accused had been released on bail following land retrieval, and no evidence supported the allegation that he diverted funds to his own chest. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that where the land was retrieved, co-accused were admitted to bail, and the prosecution failed to show evidence of an aggravated role or diversion of funds, the petitioner could not be treated differently under the rule of parity. Granting the appeal, the Supreme Court admitted the petitioner to post-arrest bail subject to furnishing bail bonds, laying down the principle that similarly placed co-accused in a crime must be extended equal treatment regarding bail absent evidence of an aggravated role.
QAZI MUHAMMAD AMIN AHMED, J. Ghulab Khan, petitioner herein, seeks admission to bail. As Secretary Karachi Port Trust Officers Cooperative Housing Society , he is accused alongside others in NAB Reference No.11 of 2018 for having unauthorizedly doled out commercial/residential plots to the non-members after interpolating minutes of the meetings; loss incurred by the society is estimated as 11.73 Billions. It is further alleged that he diverted the amounts so received to his own coffer. Having surrendered the plots as well as claims thereon, all the co-accused have since been released on bail by the High Court of Sindh. Considered distinguishly placed, he has been denied the concession vide impugned order dated 4.10.2019.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that notwithstanding the accusation, the petitioner , nonetheless, is identically placed and as such there was no occasion for the learned High Court to decline the request. It has been pointed out that allegation of petitioner having diverted funds into his own chest is not supported by evidence and, thus, the distinction vis-a-vis the co-accused is not sustainable. The learned Law Officer, while faithfully contesting the motion, nonetheless has fairly conceded absence of any evidence to suggest diversion of the sale proceeds.
3. Heard. Record perused.
4. It is admitted at all hands that barring the petitioner all the co-accused, includin g those placed at a higher rung, have been released on bail. The entire land has since been retrieved by the society; the allottees had also abandoned their claims. In the above backdrop, petitioner's culpability , alongside his colleagues in the crime can be best settled after recording of evidence, during the trial already in progress. The learned Law Officer has not been able to point out evidence suggestive of any aggravated role played by the petiti oner in the scam; he cannot be treated differently . Sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander . This petition is converted into appeal; allowed.
Petitioner/ appellant shall be released on bail subject to his furnishing bond in the sum of Rs. One Million with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court.