ABDUL GHAFFAR Versus State
This consolidated order by the High Court of Sindh addresses multiple applications for the confirmation of interim pre-arrest bail granted to the main applicant and co-accused in a financial crimes case. The primary legal issue before the Court was whether the applicants were entitled to confirmation of pre-arrest bail where the main applicant had already been granted post-arrest bail in a subsequent, more grave case registered under the same offences along with additional provisions, and where the investigating agency had unduly delayed submitting the final charge sheet despite the applicants' cooperation. The High Court observed that the main applicant was previously granted post-arrest bail in a similar matter registered by the same agency, which remained unchallenged. The Court noted that the co-accused stood on better footings, all applicants had joined investigation without misusing bail, and the Investigating Officer failed to offer any legal justification for a six-month delay in completing investigation. Consequently, applying the rule of consistency and finding no merit in custodial detention, the High Court confirmed the interim pre-arrest bail for all applicants.
- Whether pre-arrest bail can be confirmed under the rule of consistency when a co-accused or main applicant has been granted bail in a similar matter involving additional offences?
- Whether an unjustified six-month delay by the investigating agency in submitting a final charge sheet militates against refusing pre-arrest bail?
- Can interim pre-arrest bail be confirmed where the applicants have fully cooperated with the investigation and there is no allegation of misusing the concession of bail?
- Section 3, Anti Money Laundering Act 2010
- Section 4, Anti Money Laundering Act 2010
ORDER
AFTAB AHMED GORAR, J.--- All the listed bail applications are arising out of same case, hence I intend to hear and dispose of all these bail applications together by a common order. Applicants in all aforesaid criminal bail applications are present who were earlier admitted to pre-arrest bail and today these matters are fixed for confirmation or otherwise.
2. It is contended by the learned Counsel appearing for applicant Abdul Ghaffar that the applicant has been involved in this crime by the complainant with mala fide intention and ulterior motives and he has been granted interim pre-arrest bail by this Court. He further contended that after grant of interim pre-arrest bail, the applicant was booked in another Crime bearing No.08/2021 arising out of Enquiry No.4 of 2021 by the F.I.A. not only for the offences punishable under same sections rather Sections 3 and 4 of Anti Money Laundering Act, 2010 were also added in which case he was enlarged on post arrest bail by this Court vide order 28.05.2021. He has also produced copy of the order dated 28.05.2021. He submits that involving the applicant again in same offences shows that since the investigating agency could not establish the earlier case registered against the applicant hence in order to shelter their failure, the applicant has been booked in this case as well under same sections. He further submitted that since this Court has already granted bail to the applicant in another crime under same sections rather registered with additional sections hence he is entitled to be enlarged on bail in this case as well.
3. Learned counsel for other applicants while arguing their respective cases have taken identical pleas, also reiterated the grounds mentioned in the memo of bail applications and submitted that after obtaining interim bail, the applicants have not misused the concession of pre-arrest bail and have also joined the investigation and statements of all applicants have also been recorded by the I.O. Learned Counsel has also placed on record copy of order dated 28.05.2021, passed in Criminal Bail Application No.859 of 2021, whereby post-arrest bail was granted to applicant Abdul Ghaffar son of late Muhammad Sharif in another Crime bearing No.8 of 2021 arising out of Enquiry No.4 of 2021 dated 20.03.2021, which is not only registered under the same offences as shown in the cases of present applicants rather Sections 3 and 4 of Anti Money Laundering Act, 2010 were also included. Learned Counsel also submit taking the aforesaid circumstance into consideration, the present applicants are also entitled for same relief; hence, prayed for confirmation of their bail by following the rule of consistency.
4. Learned Assistant Attorney General has vehemently opposed the confirmation of bail. The I.O. is present and requests for three months' time to submit final charge sheet as he has yet not completed the investigation.
5. Perusal of record demonstrates that applicant Abdul Ghaffar who was also booked in another Crime bearing No.8 of 2021 registered by the same agency, which is not only punishable under the same sections under which the applicants are being tried but Sections 3 and 4 of Anti Money Laundering Act, 2010 were also added and has already been granted post-arrest bail by this Court vide order dated 28.05.2021, therefore, he is also entitled for grant of bail in this case. As far as the cases of other applicants/co-accused are concerned, comparatively their cases are on some better footings. It is pertinent to mention here that the said order of granting bail to the applicant Abdul Ghaffar in all these offences has gone unchallenged by the prosecution till today. Further that the Investigating Officer namely, Sheheryar AD FIA CCRC, Karachi is present in Court and on Court query, has made a categorical statement that all the applicants have joined investigation inasmuch as their respective statements have also been recorded. I.O. seeks further three months' time for furnishing the final charge sheet as he has not yet completed the investigation. It is a matter of record that though the FIR was lodged in the month of March, 2021 and despite lapse of six months the I.O. has come with the statement that since he has not completed the investigation so far as such seeking further time to submit the charge sheet for which he has not given any legal justification. There is no compliant regarding misuse of concession of bail or tempering the record against any of the applicants. Further-more, keeping applicants behind the bars would neither strengthen the case of prosecution nor benefit the prosecution in any manner whereas the applicants are regularly appearing before this Court and have also cooperated in investigation.
6. In view of the above discussion, the interim pre-arrest bail granted to applicants is confirmed on same terms and conditions. All the listed Criminal Bail Applications stand disposed of. However, the applicants are directed to cooperate with the Investigating Officer. The I.O. of the case is directed to complete the investigation within three months and submit final challan before the learned trial Court for concluding the trial. Once the challan is submitted by the I.O. within the stipulated time before the learned trial Court thereafter the learned trial Court is directed to conclude the trial within the period of three (03) months and submit compliance report through MIT-II. In case any of the applicants misuse the concession of bail or the learned Counsel appearing for any of the applicants avoids to proceed with the case, the trial Court is set at liberty to pass appropriate orders according to law without prior permission of this Court.
7. Office is directed to place copy of this order in all connected criminal bail applications listed above.
SA/A-109/Sindh Bail granted.