2022 YLRN 159

Syed KHURSHEED AHMED SHAH (MNA) Versus NATIONAL ACCOUNTABILITY BUREAU

Citation2022 YLRN 159

CourtSindh High Court

Judge(s)Shamsuddin Abbasi and Amjad Ali Sahito

ORDER

AMJAD ALI SAHITO, J .---By this common order, we intend to dispose of the above bail before arrest petitions i.e. C. Ps. Nos.1850/2019, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 110 and 111 of 2020 filed by the petitioners namely Nisar Ahmed Pathan, (hereinafter referred as the "accused No.2") Rahim Bux Awan, (hereinafter referred as the "accused No.3"), Waqar Rahim, (hereinafter referred as the accused No.4), Muhammad Akram Khan, (hereinafter referred as the "accused No. 6") Bibi Gul Naz, (hereinafter referred as the "accused No.7"), Bibi Talat, (hereinafter referred as the "accused No.8"), Syed Farrukh Ahmed Shah,(hereinafter referred as the "accused No.9"), Syed Zeerakh Khursheed Shah,(hereinafter referred as the "accused No.10"), Syed Awais Qadir Shah, (hereinafter referred as the "accused No.11"), Muhammad Shoaib, (hereinafter referred as the "accused No.13") Syed Khalid Hussain Shah, (hereinafter referred as the "accused No.18"), respectively, so also post-arrest bail petition Nos.D-44 and 113 of 2020 filed by petitioners Syed Khursheed Ahmed Shah, (hereinafter referred as "accused No.1") and Abdul Razzak Bahrani, (hereinafter referred as the "accused No.5"), respectively, in NAB Reference No. 17 of 2019 (The State v. Syed Khursheed Ahmed Shah and others).

2. The relevant facts, as set out in Reference No. 17 of 2019, are based on multiple complaints against the accused No.1 that he is the richest man in the Sindh, and accumulated assests which are beyond his known sources of income, hence inquiry was authorized by Chairman NAB against him, his benamidars and others, which thereafter was upgraded into investigation vide Letter No. 740092/IW-H/CO/T-3/NAB Sukkur/2019 dated 13.12.2019. The Investigating Officer has filed investigation report, which reveals that the accused No.1 hold public offices since 1979 to 1988 remained Councilor in Sukkur Municipal Corporation and then was elected as Member Provincial Assembly Sindh in different terms from the years 1988 to 1994 having a portfolio of different Ministries and then was elected as Member National Assembly in different terms from the year 1994 till date and held portfolio of different ministries as well as Leader of Opposition. The accused No.1 declared he and his dependents/benamidars accused 7 to 10 legal sources of income i.e. salary, business income from the property and agricultural land during the period 2005, 2008 to 2019, accused No.1 and his dependents earned total income from their known sources of income to the tune of Rs.67,488,907/-. The accused No.1 purchased the following agricultural land, residential properties in his name as well as in the name of accused Nos.7 to 12 during the period 2005, 2008 to 2019 to which they failed to justify.

3. The accused No.1 opened 05 bank accounts in his name and the name of his dependents for laundering proceeds of crime, for misappropriation and thereafter heavy unexplained amounts travelled into 05 bank accounts to which accused Nos. 1 and 7 to 9 failed to justify.

4. The investigation report reveals that accused Nos.2 to 6 and 13 to 18 are abettors, facilitators and associates of accused Nos.1 and 7 to 12 and acted in conspiracy with each other. Accused Nos. 2 to 4 and 13 to 18 are also involved in disguising the true nature of transactions and laundering proceeds of crime in payments of sale and purchase of 12 immovable properties as stated in above para-4. Accused Nos. 2 to 6 and 13 to 18 are involved in concealing, layering of proceeding of crime and intentionally and willfully facilitated accused Nos. 1 and 7 to 12 in the offence of corruption and corrupt practices as well as money laundering. In comparing the known sources of income with the investment of accused Nos.1 and 7 to 12 and expenditure in the cash flow chart, the accused No.1 has been given 25% salary income as saving, whereas, 75% salary income has been taken as his household expenditures which include expenses of foods, clothing and other family expenses. The due benefits of legal receipts, agricultural-income, rental income and salary of his wife etc. have been given in cash flow chart and as per inflow and outflow charts, accused No.1 and accused Nos.7 to 12 accumulated assets to the tune of Rs.715,743,751/- from the years 2005, 2008 to 2019. Accused Nos. 1 and 7 to 12 have got these accumulations of assets from income expenditure and over expenses as per cash inflow and outflow chart and from the years 2005 to 2019 the total income was Rs.67,488,907, whereas, the income was Rs.783,232,658/- and the over expenses were Rs.715,743,751/-. The accused Nos.1 and 7 to 12 having assets beyond known sources of income which are unexplained and disproportionate to their known pecuniary sources. Accused Nos.1 and 7 to 12 acted in collaboration and conspiracy of accused Nos. 2 to 6 and 13 to 18 and involved in money laundering by acquiring, converting, transferring properties and also concealing the true nature of banking transactions knowingly having reason to believe that such properties, banking transactions have proceeded of crime as well as disproportionate to their known sources of income to which accused Nos.1 and 7 to 12 could not reasonably account for these assets. The accused Nos. 1 and 7 to 12 also maintained the standard of living which doesn't commensurate with their known sources of income.

S.No.

Liability

Amount

Assets/income dispropor-tionate to known sources of income as per the cash flow chart

Rs.715,743,751/-

Unexplained banking transactions

Rs.371,904,923/- & USD 84,343/-

Unexplained cash in hand

Rs.4,99,60,829/-

Illegal gain or agriculture land

Rs.1220.4409,803/- & USD 84,343/-

5. The record of bank accounts of contractors, benamidars, abettors, main accused as well as the role of management of cooperative societies are under scrutiny and JIT has been constituted, therefore, this interim reference is being filed, whereas, the supplementary reference will be filed on completion of investigation either by CIT or JIT, hence from the facts and evidence collected during the inquiry and the investigation, it has been established that accused Nos. 1 and 7 to 12 in connivance with each other accumulated assets beyond their known sources of income which are disproportionate to their known pecuniary sources of income. Accused Nos.1 and 7 to 12 and accused Nos. 2 to 6 and 13 to 18 (associates, abettors, facilitators) accumulated assets to the tune of Rs.1,229,449,803/- and USD 84,343/- which are disproportionate to their known sources of income, as such the accused Nos.1 to 18 have committed the offence of corruption and corrupt practices as defined under section 9(a)(v) and (xii) punishable under Section 10 of the National Accountability Ordinance, 1999 and schedule thereto read with section (iii ) and (iv) of Anti-Money Laundering Act, 2010.

6. Mian Raza Rabbani learned counsel for petitioner Syed Khursheed Ahmed Shah in C.P. No.D-44/2020, so also other learned counsel for the petitioners mainly contended that the petitioners are innocent and have falsely been implicated in this case; Learned counsel for accused No.1 further contended that the petitioner has been under enquiry or investigation since 2001 and the first three investigations were u nder section 9(c) National Accountability Ordinance, 1999 (hereinafter referred to as NAO, 1999); that National Accountability Bureau (hereinafter referred to as NAB) closed the said investigation in the year 2012 prior to this investigation; that the call up notice was issued to the accused No.1 on 13.09.2019 being notice for enquiry under section 9 of the NAO, 1999 and enquiry under section 18(c) NAO, 1999 and section 24 of Anti-Money Laundering Act, 2010 and on the said notice, the petitioner/accused No.1 appeared before the NAB authorities regarding assets and bank accounts held in his name and in the names of his family members; that another call up notice was issued to the petitioner/accused No.1, but there was Session of the National Assembly and finally on 18.09.2019 the petitioner/accused No.1 was arrested under warrant of arrest and subsequently produced before the Administrative Judge, Accountability Court at Islamabad; that the NAB authorities along with Magistrate raided the residences of the petitioner/accused No.1 but could not recover any incriminating material against him; that on 09.11.2019 the petitioner/ accused No.1 was sent to judicial custody while allowing full access to the NAB authorities to confront the documents or witnesses to the petitioner/accused No.1 and since then he is in jail; that the petitioner/accused No.1 suffers from chronic ailment diseases of diabetes, hypertension and cardiac; that since the investigation has been closed in the year 2012 and such order has been upheld by this Court hence the NAB authorities have no powers to reopen or reinvestigate the same allegations; that the petitioner/ accused No.1 has categorically admitted that he knows that what assets owned by him and those which have been declared in his income tax Returns so also in the statement of assets and liabilities, filed before the Election Commission of Pakistan; that the other properties in the Reference and in the investigation are not in his name and for which he has denied the allegations for committing an offence under section 9(a)(v) NAO, 1999 (assets beyond known sources of income); that the NAB authorities have failed to make-out the case in terms of the established ingredients of the offence as per section 9(a)(v) of NAO 1999; that it must be established that the petitioner/accused No.1 was holding a public office, that the pecuniary sources or property which were in his possession, what were his known sources of income or the same were disproportionate to his known sources of income; that it is a settled principle of law that mere possession of any pecuniary sources or property is by itself not an offence but failure to satisfactorily account for such possession of pecuniary sources or property that makes the possession objectionable and constitute a offences, meaning thereby, if the accused cannot explain, presumption would be that the accused is guilty of corruption and corrupt practices may be drawn; that it is first for the prosecution to show the entire sources of income, if it fails the onus remain on them; that the Investigating Officer has failed to discounted the agricultural income of the petitioner/ accused No.1 amounting to Rs.91,840,300/- generated from 574-00 Acres of land situated at Taluka Rohri, District Sukkur on the presumption that the said land has been illegally acquired by the petitioner/ accused No.1; that the agricultural land admeasuring 574-00 Acres was the subject of the previous investigation and from the NAB record, it has been established that the petitioner/accused No.1 had purchased the same in the year 1999 through a registered GPA at the rate of Rs.10,200/- per acre, the total amount of the said sale transaction was Rs.60,00,000/-; that the Investigating Officer with ulterior motives has calculated the salaries of the petitioner/accused No.1 and his wife's business from 2008, whereas, the petitioner/accused No.1 was generating his income from 1971; that the Plots Nos.176, 177, 178 and 179 in Professors Co-operative Housing Society Sukkur are in the names of Syed Zeerakh Shah, Syed Farukh Shah, Bibi Gul Naz and Bibi Talat, sons and wives, whereas, the petitioner/accused No.1 has no concern with the said plots; that the said plots being amenity plots and their conversion into residential plots is factually incorrect; that the Investigating Officer has deliberately with mala fide intentions has concealed the Master Plan of the said Society which was prepared in the year 1981 and the said Master Plan shows that the entire area is residential; that regarding property i.e. 06 Acres in KDA Karachi the petitioner/accused No.1 is not shareholder; that the 04-00 Acres Commercial plots in Site Area Sukkur the petitioner/accused No.1 was partner of Shah Food Industry and made an application to SITE Sukkur for allotment of 04-00 Acres Industrial plot and subsequently an agreement License was executed, however, transfer and / or possession of the plot never took place in the name of M/s Shah Food Industries; that regarding property plot in Halar Memon Society initially the plot was allotted by the Society to the petitioner/ accused No.1 was in dispute, therefore, as per Minutes of the Society alternate plot by way of exchange was given to the petitioner / accused No. 1, hence no payment was required; that the property 1000 square yards situated at DHA Phase-VIII Karachi, the said plot was purchased in the name of his wife Bibi Gul Naz. In support of his arguments, learned counsel has relied upon the cases of Muhammad Subtain Khan v. National Accountability Bureau and others (PLD 2020 Lahore 91); Hakim Ali Zardari v. The State (2007 MLD 910 [Karachi]); Muhammad Hashim Babar v. The State and another (2010 SCMR 1697); unreported Order of Sindh High Court at Principal Seat Karachi passed in Constitution Petition No.D-1437/2019 and others (Agha Mussihuddin Khan Durrani v. Chairman NAB and others); Chairman NAB v. Abdul Hakeem and others (PLD 2020 Balochistan 10), Abdul Rahim v. Mukhtiar Ahmed and others (2001 SCMR 1488); Mst. Hajran Bibi and others v. Suleman and others (2003 SCMR 1555); Ghazi Naseem and others v. Moulana Muhammad Bilal Somayari and another (2010 MLD 495); Amir Jamal and others v. Malik Zahoor-ul-Haq and others (2011 SCMR 1023); Shamshair Ali v. Mukhtiarkar (Revenue) and others (2016 CLC Note 22); Abdul Jabbar and others v. Ghulam Mustafa and others (2019 CLC 704); Aftabuddin Qureshi and another v. Mst. Rachel Joseph and another (PLD 2001 Supreme Court 482); Adnan Afzal v. Capt. Sher Afzal (PLD 1969 Supreme Court 187) and The State through PG NAB v. Misbahuddin Farid (2003 SCMR 150).

7. Mr. Mukesh Kumar G. Karara learned counsel for petitioner Muhammad Akram Khan in (C.P. No. D-103/2020) contends that the allegation against the petitioner is that he has credited an amount of Rs.2500000/- in 2 bank accounts of accused No.1/Syed Khursheed Ahmed Shah, in fact, Syed Khursheed Ahmed Shah had given that amount to the petitioner for depositing in election account and the same transaction has taken place through a crossed cheque by the petitioner, hence the petitioner has no concern with the alleged benamidar nor prosecution has produced any documentary evidence which shows that these are the documents that benefited the petitioner.

8. Mr. Mukesh Kumar G.Karara learned counsel for petitioner Syed Awais Qadir Shah in (C.P. No.D-104/2020) contends that the allegation against the petitioner is that he is a nephew of accused No.1 Syed Khursheed Ahmed Shah and he is the beneficiary of the agricultural land admeasuring 100-00 Acres situated in Deh Khahi Jagir Taluka Rohri; that the petitioner has purchased the said land from original owners through a registered sale deed, which was executed on 27.10.2005 including the co-purchasers and the entire sale consideration was paid in cash; that the NAB authorities have wrongly assessed the value of the said landed property just to rope up the present petitioner with the principal accused; that at the time of purchasing the said area of the landed property the value of was shown as Rs.10,200/- per acre; that there is mala fide on the part of the NAB authorities, therefore, the present petitioner has wrongly been included in the Reference. He has lastly prayed for confirmation of the interim pre-arrest bail earlier granted to the petitioner.

9. Barrister Waleed Khanzada learned counsel for petitioner Syed Farukh Ahmed Shah in (C.P. No. D-105/2020) has argued the matter and filed written synopsis. He has forcefully argued that the petitioner is not alleged Benamidar of accused No.1 Syed Khursheed Ahmed Shah and from his sources of income he has purchased all the four properties. He has further contended that (57-35) Acres agricultural land pertaining to year 2005 was originally owned by Syed Khursheed Ahmed Shah and such investigation against the accused Syed Khursheed Ahmed Shah has already been closed at NAB Karachi during the year 2012; that the assets covered in that investigation has been included in the instant investigation; that regarding 25% share in 06-00 Acres Commercial plot in Scheme-33, Tapo Gojro Karachi originally was purchased by the uncle of the petitioner namely Syed Ali Nawaz Shah and subsequently gifted to the petitioner; that the said gift was also declared by Syed Ali Nawaz Shah in his income tax return / Wealth Statement in the year 2012; that third allegation against the petitioner was that plots Nos. 177-B and 179-B Professors Cooperative Housing Society which was purchased by the petitioner for total consideration of Rs.7,50000/-; that the said plots were purchased by the petitioner from the sale proceeds of Scheme-33; that the fourth allegation against the petitioner was that co-accused namely Waqar Rahim Awan credited an amount of Rs.4.6 Million in the bank account of the petitioner being the loan obtained from the late uncle of the co-accused namely Zahid Hussain Awan as well as the payment for supply of the material to the contractor Waqar Rahim Awan. In support of his contentions he has relied upon the case law reported in 2010 SCMR 198, 2010 SCMR 1697, 2011 SCMR 136, PLD 2005 SC 63, 2009 SCMR 790, PLD 2011 SC 1144, PLD 2016 SC 276, PLD 2018 SC 595, PLD 2007 SC 539 and unreported judgment of Islamabad High Court in Writ Petition No. 769/2019. He lastly prayed that the interim pre-arrest bail earlier granted to the petitioner may be confirmed on same terms and conditions.

10. Barrister Waleed Khanzada learned counsel for the petitioner Syed Zeerakh Shah in (C.P. No. D-106/2020) contended that 28-00 Acres of agricultural land was purchased by the father of the petitioner, which was subsequently got transferred in the name of the present petitioner, as such the petitioner has nothing to do with the alleged offence. He lastly prayed for confirmation of the interim pre-arrest bail earlier granted to the petitioner on the same terms and conditions.

11. Mr. Mukesh Kumar G. Karara learned counsel for petitioner Bibi Talat in (C.P. No. D-107/2020) contended that the petitioner being the wife of the principal accused Syed Khursheed Ahmed Shah was the beneficiary of 100-00 Acres of agricultural land situated in Deh Khahi Jagir, Taluka Rohri; that the petitioner has purchased the plot No.176-B, 4-18 Acres of land situated in Deh Miani Sukkur and 25% share in 6-00 Acres Commercial Scheme Tapo Gojro SITE Karachi from her sources of income; learned counsel in support of his contentions produced the agreement of sale, FBR returns so also filed form A Sub-lease Pakistan Defence Officers Housing Society, Karachi in respect of Flat No.B-6 Al-Habib Center, Block-5 Clifton Karachi. He further contended that after the sale of the said flat the petitioner initially purchased the agricultural land and thereafter from other sources of income she has purchased other valuable properties; that the daughter of petitioner Bibi Talat was living at the USA for education purpose, therefore, such US$ account was opened and from that account, she was paying the monthly expenses to her daughter. He lastly prayed for confirmation of the interim pre-arrest bail granted earlier to the petitioner on same terms and conditions.

12. Mr. Mukesh Kumar G. Karara, learned counsel for petitioner Syed Khalid Hussain Shah in (C.P. No.D-108/2020) contended that the petitioner has got nothing whatsoever nature with the alleged inquiry against principal accused Syed Khursheed Ahmed Shah; that the petitioner is businessman engaged in the manufacturing and export of Leather Goods since last thirty years; that there is no any hidden sources of income of the petitioner except the above business and landed property/immoveable properties fully disclosed in the returns of the FBR; that land purchased by the petitioner is duly declared and disclosed property; that the property has been purchased through lawful manner and in accordance with law; that the properties/assets have been disclosed and declared in the wealth returns filed with the FBR; that the above factual position shall prove that there is no any element of Benamidar/hidden sources of income as alleged by the NAB authorities; that the NAB authorities with mala fide intentions and ulterior motives have not joined other Directors but have implicated the present petitioner and have adopted the policy of pick and choose. He lastly prayed for confirmation of the interim pre-arrest bail granted earlier to the petitioner on same terms and conditions.

13. Barrister Waleed Khanzada, learned counsel for the petitioner Bibi Gul Naz in (C.P No.D-110/2020) contended that the petitioner is a house hold lady but she is pardanasheen woman and there is difference which bureau as it seems does not understand; that the salary income of the petitioner in the year 2009 as declared has been drawn from Messrs Leather up Company wherein she holds share, therefore, salary income of the petitioner was granted in cash flow; that no amount stands disproportionate to her own pecuniary sources of accused till 31.12.2006, therefore, including the property on 31.12.2006 or before is illegal and not maintainable and void and ab initio; that the next allegation against the petitioner Bibi Gul Naz was 100-00 Acres of agriculture land at Deh Khahi Jagir Taluka Rohri; that it is suffice to say that the sale deed dated 27.10.2005 which is available at page 3653 of folder-3, wherein it is stated that an investigation against principal accused Syed Khursheed Ahmed Shah has already been closed at NAB Karachi during the year 2012 and the assets covered in that already closed investigation have not been included in the instant investigation; that it has been stated in the investigation that Mian Safdar Hussain and Mian Muhammad Anwer appeared before CIT and stated that this land has been covered in the previous closed inquiry against principal accused Syed Khursheed Ahmed Shah; that as regards to the plot No.178-B Professors Cooperative Housing Society the said plot was purchased for an amount of Rs.7,50000/- by the present petitioner from her own sources of income; that the sale agreement of shares of public limited company i.e. Leather up for Rs.6.00 Million and from selling of such shares, the petitioner was shown as Director and after selling of the same she is no longer reflected in the records of SECP and Stock exchange as the Leather up public limited company duly listed at Stock exchange of the country; that another allegation against the petitioner Bibi Gul Naz is that Plot # 62 Khayaban-e-Faisal,Phase-8 admeasuring 1000 square yards, the petitioner was owner of house admeasuring 500 sq. yards situated at Khayaban-e-Shujaat and the same is not part of the instant Reference, the said house was sold by the petitioner for a sale consideration of Rs.27 Million and agreement shows that the said amount was received by the petitioner and from that amount she purchased the plot # 62 for a total sale consideration of Rs.20 Million. He further contended that the investigation has been completed and the Reference has been filed and the present petitioner is no more required for further inquiry. He lastly contended that the interim pre-arrest bail earlier granted to the petitioner may be confirmed on same terms and conditions.

14. Mr. Qurban Ali Malano learned counsel for the petitioners Rahim Bux, Waqar Rahim and Muhammad Saqib in (C.P No.D-111/2020) mainly contended it is alleged that initially, the plot was in the name of one Nisar Ahmed Pathan, subsequently, the accused No.1 Syed Khursheed Ahmed Shah got transferred the same in the name of his sons and nephew but infact the petitioners have purchased a private property from one private person, hence they have not committed any offence; that if any allegation is against the petitioners that they have converted the amenity plot into residential plots, then the offence has been committed by the officials of the Society and they are not accused in the Reference; that if any receipts have been produced by the Investigating Officer that the accused No.1 Syed Khursheed Ahmed Shah had paid an amount of the said plot in the year 2011, but no proof has been produced that the petitioners have abated or the benamidars of the principal accused No.1 Syed Khursheed Ahmed Shah. He lastly prayed for confirmation of the interim pre-arrest bail earlier granted to the petitioners on the same terms and conditions.

15. Mr. Haq Nawaz Talpur learned counsel for petitioner Abdul Razak Bahrani in (C.P No.D-113/2020) submits that the allegation against the petitioner is that he is a Contractor has issued a Cheque No.8522961 amounting to Rs.2500000.00 dated 20.03.2017 to the principal accused Syed Khursheed Ahmed Shah, infact he had issued the above cheque to one Allahdino Katpar by leaving the blank name and ink is changed and the said Allahdino Katpar if he has given the said cheque to main accused Syed Khursheed Ahmed Shah, the petitioner has no knowledge; that the petitioner being Contractor was receiving Hill Sand, Stone, Crash from the said Allahdino and issued the cheque of the said amount to him; that he has not committed any offence; that the arrest of the petitioner is based on mala fides. He has also invited our attention on different date and pages of the different folders; that the petitioner is in jail and he is no more required for further investigation. He lastly prayed for grant of post-arrest bail to the petitioner. In support of his contentions, he has relied upon the cases of Shoaib Warsi and another v. Federation of Pakistan and others (PLD 2017 Sindh 243); Zahoor Ahmed Sheikh and others v. Chairman, NAB and others (PLD 2007 Karachi 243); Raja Muhammad Zarat Khan and another v. Federation of Pakistan and others (PLD 2007 Karachi 597); unreported Order of Sindh High - Court at Principal Seat Karachi passed in Constitution Petition No.D-1437/2019 and others (Agha Mussihuddin Khan Durrani v. Chairman NAB and others) and unreported Order dated 17.12.2019 passed by Islamabad High Court (Mrs. Faryal Talpur v. The State through Chairman NAB and another).

16. Mr. Mehfooz Ahmed Awan learned counsel for petitioners Nisar Ahmed Pathan, Muhammad Shoaib, Zuhaib Meer, Saqib Raza and Tufail Ahmed in C.P. No.D-1850/2019 argued that the original plot which was in the name of National Institute of Modern Trades is still available in the Map and he has invited our attention on the Map by submitting that the four separate plots are shown in the Map but the NAB authorities malafidely and with ulterior motives have implicated the present petitioners in the Reference. He lastly prayed for confirmation of the interim pre-arrest bail earlier granted to the petitioners on same terms and conditions.

17. Learned Special Prosecutor NAB duly assisted by the Investigating Officer NAB in (C.P. No.D-44/2020) vehemently opposed for grant of post-arrest bail to the petitioner Syed Khursheed Ahmed Shah by contending that after receiving multiple complaints vide order dated 07.08.2019 the Chairman NAB authorized the Director General NAB to initiated inquiry within the meaning of section 18(c) of NAO, 1999, that this new/fresh inquiry having no concern with the previous inquiries as assets accumulated by the petitioner Syed Khursheed Ahmed Shah after 2005; that the NAB inserted only one property in the fresh inquiry which is 574-00 Acres of agricultural land situated in Taluka Rohri; that due to influence of the petitioner/accused No.1 the officials of Sindh Government were not ready to provide the documents which is required by the law as such the non-bailable Warrants were issued to enquire from the petitioner/accused No.1; that all the P.Ws. in their 161, Cr.P.C. statements have fully implicated the petitioner in the commission of the offence; that the petitioner has purchased huge properties including agricultural land, residential and maintained other bank accounts in his name and accumulated the assets to the tune of Rs.1229,449,803/- and US$ 84343.00 which are disproportionate to his known sources of income, thus he has committed an offence of corruption and corrupt practices under section 9(a)(v) and (xii) punishable under section 10 of the NAO, 1999; that the petitioner/ accused No.1 has transferred the amenity plot of Professors Employees Cooperative Housing Society into residential plot; that the petitioner accused also possesses 06-00 Acres commercial plot in Scheme No.33 at Karachi, another plot of 43875 sq. feet at Hallar Memon Society Sukkur, 04-00 Acres commercial plot in SITE Sukkur, 1000 sq. yards plot in DHA Karachi which is in the name of Bibi Gul Naz but not declared in the FBR return; that the petitioner/accused No.1 also possessed so many undeclared properties, cash flow assessment, bank account details and unexplained cash in hand. He prayed that the petitioner/accused No.1 is not entitled for the concession of bail. In support of his contentions, he has relied upon the cases of (2017 SCMR 2060), (2017 PCr.LJ Law note-138) and (PLD 2001 Lahore 271).

18. Learned Special Prosecutor NAB Sukkur duly assisted by the Investigating Officer NAB in (C.P. No.D-103/2020) vehemently opposed for confirmation of the interim pre-arrest bail earlier granted to the petitioner Muhammad Akram Pathan by contending that the petitioner is one of the alleged benamidars and proprietor of Messrs Umar Jan and Co. and the amount paid to the main accused Syed Khursheed Ahmed Shah as kickback.

19. Learned Special Prosecutor NAB Sukkur duly assisted by the Investigating Officer NAB in (C.Ps. Nos.D-104 and 106 of 2020) vehemently opposed for confirmation of the interim pre-arrest bail earlier granted to the petitioners namely Syed Awais Qadir Shah and Syed Zeerakh Shah, on the ground that the properties owned by the principal accused Syed Khursheed Ahmed Shah was subsequently transferred in the names of the present petitioners. He further contended that there is no sale consideration amount was deposited in the account of the principal accused Syed Khursheed Ahmed Shah, hence the present petitioners being the real nephew and son of the principal accused are also the benamidars, therefore, they are not entitled for an extra-ordinary concession of pre-arrest bail.

20. Learned Special Prosecutor NAB duly assisted by Investigating Officer vehemently opposed for confirmation of the interim pre-arrest bail to the petitioner Syed Farrukh Ahmed Shah in (C.P. No.D-105/2020) by contending that the date of birth of the petitioner is 27.05.1982 and the purchase of property i.e. (57-35) Acres in Deh Khahi Jagir, Taluka Rohri on 27.10.2005 when the age of the petitioner was about 22 years having no independent source of income; that the conversion of amenity plots vide Plot Nos. 177-B and 179-B in the year 2014 the value of the property is about 30 Million but the petitioner at that time was having no source of income or any business; that the construction of the said plots of his share was about 125 Million but no legitimate source of income was disclosed by the petitioner; that 25% share in 6-00 Acres commercial plot in Scheme No.33 Tapo Gojro, SITE Area Karachi in the year 2012 amounting Rs.22.5 Million; that an amount of Rs.66.37 Million were lying the bank account of the petitioner, though without any business and independent source of income; that amount of Rs.4.6 Million was credited in the bank account of the petitioner by co-accused Waqar Raheem being the kickback; that as per letter dated 24.09.2019 a team consisting of Mukhtiarkar (Revenue) Rohri and two Tapedars have assessed the value of the properties owned by principal accused Syed Khursheed Ahmed Shah and his family including the present petitioner; that the petitioner having no source of income or any other business is possessing the huge properties total valuing Rs.191,968,750.00. He lastly prayed for dismissal of the instant Constitutional Petition and recalling of the interim pre-arrest bail granted to the petitioner.

21. Learned Special Prosecutor NAB duly assisted by Investigating Officer vehemently opposed for confirmation of the interim pre-arrest bail to the petitioner Bibi Talat in (C.P. No.D-107/2020) by contending that the documents along with the FBR Returns produced by the learned counsel for the petitioner does not show that any foreign account was opened and petitioner has not shown that she was sending US$ to her daughter nor in the column of the expenditure she has disclosed the said account and expenditures. Furthermore, the flat which was purchased through sub-lease in the year 1996 and he has produced the simple sale agreement of the year 1998 before her marriage which does not show any amount that such amount was given by her parents to her for purchasing the agricultural land from her sources and there is sufficient material is available against her to connect the petitioner with the commission of the offence.

22. On the other hand learned Special Prosecutor NAB duly assisted by Investigating Officer vehemently opposed for confirmation of the interim pre-arrest bail to petitioner Syed Khalid Hussain Shah in (C.P No.D-108/2020) by contending that the petitioner is involved in transfer of 65-00 Acres of land at Deh Goserji and was managing the benamidar company Messrs Leather up Private Limited; that the P.Ws. have deposed against the petitioner in their 161, Cr.P.C. statements; that during course of inquiry/ investigation the petitioner has deposed that he along with other three Directors established Messrs Leather up Private Company Limited in Karachi in the year 1994; that the company is engaged in manufacturing and export of Leather Goods after 02 years of its establishment; that Syed Ali Nawaz Shah gifted his share to Bibi Gul Naz later in the year 2014-2015 for total consideration of Rs.0.6 Million in cash; that thus making direct transaction whether her nor Syed Khalid Hussain Shah have any documentary proof regarding the payment or receipt of sale consideration and share or initial investment.

23. Learned Special Prosecutor NAB duly assisted by Investigating Officer vehemently opposed for confirmation of the interim pre-arrest bail to petitioner Bibi Gul Naz (C.P No.D-110/2020) by contending that the petitioner Bibi Gul Naz is Benamidar and abettor of the principal accused Syed Khursheed Ahmed Shah because she has appeared before the Investigation Officer and has stated that she is a housewife and unaware of any financial transaction but surprisingly Syed Khursheed Ahmed Shah has denied that she is dependent upon him; that 100-00 Acres of agricultural land was purchased for a sale consideration of Rs.20 Million on 27.10.2005 but having no source of income; that the amenity plot No.178-B in the year 2014 valuing Rs.30 Million with construction costs of Rs.125 Million also in her name; that 1000 square yards plot in Phase-VIII, DHA Karachi was also purchased on 23.02.2018, whereas, the said property was not declared as per DHA value of the property is Rs.80 Million; that another plot # 62 Faisal Street-1 Sector-B Phase VIII DHA Karachi was purchased in the year 2017 but not declared the same in the FBR till today; that the P.Ws. have fully implicated the present petitioner Bibi Gul Naz that she is involved in the commission of the offence, hence she is not entitled for the concession of pre-arrest bail.

24. Learned Special Prosecutor NAB Sukkur duly assisted by the Investigating Officer NAB in (C.Ps. Nos.D-1850/2019 and 111/2020) submits that the petitioners have converted the amenity plot to residential plot as well as got transferred in the name of Benamidars of the principal accused No.1 Syed Khursheed Ahmed Shah namely Bibi Talat, Syed Farrukh Ahmed Shah, Bibi Gul Naz; that the P.W. namely Ghulam Mohiuddin while recording his statement has fully implicated the petitioners by stating that the amenity plot with an area of around 2930 square yards was allotted to National Institute of Modern Trade (through Principal Jamal Ahmed) on 20.04.1988 and later on vide entry dated 26.11.1992 the same existed in the name of above persons, but through Nisar Ahmed Pathan and the principal the initial allottees of Plot Nos. 176, 177, 178 and 179 are the sons of Nisar Ahmed Pathan, who further transferred the said plots in the name of other accused persons. He lastly prayed for dismissal of the instant Constitutional Petitions by recalling the interim pre-arrest bail orders earlier granted to the petitioners.

25. On the other hand, learned Special Prosecutor NAB vehemently opposed for grant of bail to the accused Abdul Razak Bahrani (C.P. No.D-113/2020) on the ground that an amount of Rs.2500000.00 in the form of kickback and commission was travelled from the account of Shahbaz World Builder into official account of Syed Khursheed Ahmed Shah in ABL Parliament House Branch, Islamabad; that both the accused viz. Syed Khursheed Ahmed Shah and Abdul Razak Bahrani also refused for having any business transaction or relation; that both the accused failed to give any legal justification or reason for such transaction. In support of his contentions, he has relied upon the cases of Ali Dino Gahoti and others v. Director General NAB and others (2017 PCr.LJ Note 138); Muhammad Arif Teevno v. National Accountability Bureau and others (2017 YLR Note 144); Syed Maqbool Hussain Shah v. The SHO P.S. Lower Mall, Lahore and others (1995 PCr.LJ 1655); Chairman, NAB Islamabad v. Mian Muhammad Nawaz Sharif and others (PLD 2019 Supreme Court 445) and Rai Muhammad Khan v. NAB through Chairman and others (2017 SCMR 1152).

26. We have heard learned counsel for the parties (C.P. No.D-44/2020) and perused the material available on record. The first contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner Syed Khursheed Ahmed Shah is that the investigation was already conducted and was closed in the year 2012 hence NAB has no authority to reinvestigate or reopen the same, having no force. The record reflects that a complaint was received by NAB authorities, wherein it was alleged that the Accused No.1/Syed Khursheed Ahmed Shah is the richest man in Sindh, who owns 10 flour Mills, 4000 Acres of Agricultural land in the name of his wives, 10 Cotton Factories, 02 Cement Magnamet Max Crete Bricks Factories and 05 Bungalows at Karachi, 05 shopping plazaz at Karachi, 03 Bungalows in Sukkur, 02 Bungalows in Lahore, 02 Bungalows in Islamabad, 01 Bungalow in Murree, one Villa as well as one Bungalow in Dubai. He is also the owner of vehicles i.e. Toyota Pickup No.KV-0005, Toyota Silver Corolla vide No.BEA-005, Al-Ghazi Tractor vide No.FA-8896, Mitsubishi Saloon Lancer, AHK-600 and two other vehicles. After receiving such complaint, the Chairman NAB by exercising his powers conferred upon him under Section 34-A of the NAO, 1999, vide letter dated 07.08.2019 thereby the Director General NAB Sukkur was authorized to initiate the Inquiry within the meaning of Section 18(c) of the NAO, 1999. The Director-General NAB Sukkur vide his letter dated 21.08.2019 directed Mr. Abul Hassan Kashan, Deputy Director/SIO NAB Sukkur to hold an inquiry and submit final inquiry report together with evidence and other material collected for appraisal of the competent Authority. The investigation was started from 2008 onwards as the assets and other analysis regarding the properties of the accused has remained subject-matter of the previous investigation against the petitioner Syed Khursheed Ahmed Shah but only inserted one property i.e. 574-00 Acres of the agricultural land situated in Taluka Rohri, District Sukkur. We have also perused the record, which reflects that only one property i.e. (574-00) Acres of Agricultural land has been included in the property of the petitioner in the present investigation, whereas, the fresh inquiry/investigation has been initiated on the complaint that the accused No.1 has accumulated the assets beyond his known sources of income, hence the NAB authorities have initiated the investigation against accused No.1 Syed Khursheed Ahmed Shah from the year 2008 and onwards and there is no bar for conducting a fresh inquiry.

27. According to the Reference, the evidence collected during the investigation against accused No.1 Syed Khursheed Ahmed Shah reveals that he was appointed as Telephone Complaint Clerk in the year 1970 and he was assigned the charge of Meter Reader and at that time he was the owner of only 16-00 Acres of Agricultural land by inheritance in the year 1985. Since 1988 the accused No.1 Syed Khursheed Ahmed Shah has remained on key posts i.e. Minister of Education, Transport, Finance, Information, Manpower, Overseas Pakistanis, Labour and leader of the Opposition. The source of income as claimed by the accused No.1 Syed Khursheed Ahmed Shah was his salary from 2008 to 2018 and his total salary income was Rs.16,395,723/-. The investigation report further shows that petitioner Syed Khursheed Ahmed Shah purchased the following agricultural lands, residential properties in his name as well as in the names of accused No.7 to 12 given in the Reference viz. wives, sons and nephews. The detail of properties is as under;

Sr.

Deh/Ward

Description

Deh Khahi Jagir Taluka Rohri, District Sukkur

Agricultural land

Deh Khahi Jagir Taluka Rohri, Sukkur

Agricultural land

Deh Gosirji, Taluka New Sukkur

Uncultivate d land

Deh Gosirji, Taluka New Sukkur

Uncultivate d land

Deh Gosirji, Taluka New Sukkur

Uncultivate d land

Deh Gosirji, Taluka New Sukkur

Uncultivate d Land

Deh Miani Baghat, Taluka Rohri

Warehouse

Plot Nos. 176, 177, 178 and 179

Residential Plot

50%share of Plot in scheme 33 Karachi

Commercial

Hallar Memon Society Sukkar

Residential

Commercial SITE Sukkar

Commercial

Plot DHA Phase-VIII Karachi

Residential

Survey No.

Area

Price as per Sale Deed

Assessment by Mukhtiarkar/ Sale Agreement

05 and 07

445-05 3/4 Acres

Transferred through GPA

111,409,375

05 and 07

128-38 1/4 Acres

1,350,000/-

64,490,625

457, 617, 615

11-01 Acres

680,000

2,205,000

457, 617, 615, 616 etc.

6-33 Acre

700,000/-

7,000,000/-

907, 908, 909, 910

02-01 Acres

120,000/-

405,000/-

708

02-07 Acres

Rs. 55,000/-

435,000/-

04-18 Acres

Rs. 3,220,000/-

4,450,000/-

2930 sq. yds.

3,000,000/-

60,000,000/-

03-00 Acres

15,000,000 /-

45,000,000/-

43875 sq. ft.

2,000,000/-

50,000,000/-

04-00 Acres

186,108/-

1000 sq. yds.

20,000,000 /-

80,000,000/-

28. As per cash inflow and outflow charges the accused No.1 Syed Khursheed Ahmed Shah and accused Nos.7 to 12 accumulated assets to the tune of Rs.715,743,751/- from the year 2005,2008 to 2019 as assessed by the team consisting upon Mukthiarkar (Revenue) Rohri and two Tapedars vide letter No.STM/11163 dated 24.09.2019 addressed to the Deputy Director (Coord) NAB Sukkur. Per the investigation report, the accused 1, 7 to 12 have got the accumulation of assets from ill-gotten money as they could not justify the above amount. The details of income, expenditures and over expenses as per cash inflow and outflow are as follows;

Year

Total Income

2005 to 2019

Rs.67,488,907/-

Total

Expenditure

Over expenses

Rs.783,232,658/-

Rs.715,743,751/-

29. The investigation report further discloses that accused No.1 Syed Khursheed Ahmed Shah having assets beyond known sources of income which are unexplained and disproportionate to his known pecuniary sources. The accused No.1 Syed Khursheed Ahmed Shah transferred some of the properties in the name of his two wives namely Bibi Gul Naz and Bibi Talat (accused Nos.7 and 8), sons Syed Farrukh Ahmed Shah and Syed Zeerakk Ahmed Shah (accused Nos. 9 and 10) and nephews namely Syed Awais Qadir Shah and Syed Junaid Qadir Shah (accused Nos.11 and 12). The accused No.1 Syed Khursheed Ahmed Shah also maintained the standard of living which does not commensurate with his known sources of income which are as under;-

Sr. No.

Liability

Amount

Assets/income disproportionate to known sources of income as per the cash flow chart.

Rs.715,743,751/-

Unexplained banking transactions

Rs.371,904,923 and US$ 84,343

Unexplained cash in hand

Rs.4,99,60,829/-

Illegal gain or Agricultural land

Rs.91,840,300/-

Total

Rs.1,229,449,300/- US$ 84,343.00.

30. The frequent deposit of cash in the accounts of accused No. 1 Syed Khursheed Ahmed Shah and his family members shows that he was allegedly involved in the act of corruption and corrupt practices, which in fact was the major source of his accumulation of assets. The perusal of record further reveals that during the investigation on analysis of bank accounts in the name of accused No.1 Syed Khursheed Ahmed Shah and his benamidars was obtained from banking expert and cash flow chart was prepared by taking into account the income and expenses of the petitioner and his family members.

31. In the case of Muhammad Hashim Babar v. The State (2010 SCMR 1697), the Hon'ble Supreme Court set out the ingredients of what were required to prove assets beyond known source of income case under Section 9(a)(v) of the Ordinance as under;-

"It is pertinent to mention here that in order to prove the case is the duty and obligation of the prosecution to prove the ingredients of the offence which are as follows;

(i) It must establish that the petitioner was holder of a public office.

(ii) The nature and extent of the pecuniary resources of property which were found in his possession.

(iii) It must be proved as to what were his known sources of income.

(iv) It must prove, quite objectively, that such resources or property found in possession of the petitioner were disproportionate to his known sources of income.

32. The aforesaid ingredients are proved then the offence as defined under section 9(a)(v) NAO, 1999 is complete unless the accused can account for such resources or property, it is also settled proposition of law that mere possession of any pecuniary resources or property is by itself not an offence, but his failure to satisfy account for such possession of pecuniary resources or property that makes the possession objectionable and constitute offence meaning thereby that if an accused cannot explain, the presumption under section 14(c) of NAO, 1999 that accused is guilty of corruption and corrupt practices and acquired assets beyond his sources is required to be drawn. The evidence brought on record read with presumption under section 14 of the Ordinance established the alleged charge against the accused No.1 Syed Khursheed Ahmed Shah beyond any reasonable doubt. The explanation of sources about the amount mentioned hereinabove is not furnished by the petitioner/accused No.1 as it is evident from the material collected by the Investigating Officer. It is also a settled principle of law that initial burden of proof is on the prosecution to establish the possession of properties by an accused disproportionate to his known sources of income to prove the charge of corruption and corrupt practices under NAO, 1999 and once this burden is satisfactorily discharged, the onus is shifted to the accused to prove the contrary and to give a satisfactory account of holding the properties. In case of his failure, the Court may raise the presumption of guilt. In the light of aforesaid case-law Muhammad Hashim Babar (supra), we have also examined the evidence on record with the assistance of learned counsel for the parties and have come to the conclusion that the existing assets of the accused No.1 Syed Khursheed Ahmed Shah were investigated by the NAB Authorities and tabulated as required in the case of Muhammad Hashim Babar (supra), which prima facie makes out a case of seemingly accumulation of assets beyond his known sources of income with the specification of the role on the part of accused No.1 Syed Khursheed Ahmed Shah connecting him with the offence as charged. Furthermore, all the prosecution witnesses in their 161, Cr.P.C. statements have implicated the accused No.1 and supported the version of the Investigating Officer. Learned counsel for the accused No.1 Syed Khursheed Ahmed Shah has failed to disclose any extraordinary circumstances or extreme hardship for grant of bail to him. In this context, reliance can be placed upon the case of Chairman, National Accountability Bureau, Islamabad through Prosecutor-General Accountability, Islamabad v. Mian Muhammad Nawaz Sharif and 2 others (PLD 2019 Supreme Court 445) wherein Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan has held that:- "iv) With reference to many a precedent case a Larger Bench of this Court has clarified in the case of Tallat Ishaq v. National Accountability Bureau, etc. (Civil Petition No. 632 of 2019 decided on 01.10.2018) that in cases under the National Accountability Ordinance, 1999 bail may be granted through exercise of Constitutional jurisdiction of a High Court only in extraordinary circumstances and in cases of extreme hardship but in the present cases no such extraordinary circumstance or hardship had been referred to by the High Court in the impugned judgments passed by it."

33. No mala fide or ill will has been pointed-out against the investigating officer or NAB authorities. We are of the view that the evidence and the material on the record, prima facie, connect the accused No.1 Syed Khursheed Ahmed Shah with the alleged offence. We are not convinced with the grounds taken by the learned counsel for the accused No.1 for the grant of bail.

34. The allegation against Syed Farrukh Ahmed Shah accused No.9 that he is beneficiary of the number of properties which have been purchased by the accused No.1 Syed Khursheed Ahmed Shah in his name. He has been elected as MPA in the General Elections, 2018 and the properties were purchased long before his becoming as the holder of the public office. The following properties are in his name.

S. No.

Name of Property

Year of purchase

Amount

57 Acres 35 Ghuntas Agricul-tural land at Deh Khalil Jagir, Taluka Rohri

2005

14,408,750/-

Plot No.177-B (692.7 Sq. yds) and 179-B (671.5 Sq. yads) at Professors Cooperative Housing Society

2014

30,000,000/-

Construction cost of his share in house at serial 42

2016-2017

125,000,000

25% share in 06 Acres Commer-cial plot in Scheme 33, Tapo Gojro SITE Karachi

2012

22,500,000

35. During arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner- Syed Farukh Ahmed Shah forcefully argued that the petitioner has purchased the above-said properties from his known sources of income, but he failed to produce any document which is the requirement of the NAO, 1999, as stated in the case of Muhammad Hashim Babar (supra). Furthermore, he has also received an amount of Rs.4.6 Million from the Contractor Waqar Rahim Awan and he failed to satisfy that on what account he has received such a huge amount from the said Contractor, whereas, the claim of the NAB is that accused Waqar Rahim Awan being Contractor credited a handsome amount to Syed Farrukh Ahmed Shah through Banking channel being kickback.

36. No mala fide or ill will has been pointed-out against the investigating officer or NAB authorities that the petitioner Syed Farrukh Ahmed Shah has falsely been involved in this case/ Reference, which is a requirement for the grant of pre-arrest bail. In this regard, we are fortified with the case-law of Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan Rana Abdul Khaliq v. The State (2019 SCMR 1129) wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan has held as under:--

"Grant of pre-arrest bail is an extraordinary remedy in criminal jurisdiction; it is diversion of usual course of law, arrest in cognizable cases; a protection to the innocent being hounded on trump up charges through abuse of process of law, therefore a petitioner seeking judicial protection is required to reasonably demonstrate that intended arrest is calculated to humiliate him with taints of mala fide; it is not a substitute for post-arrest bail in every run of the mill criminal case as it seriously hampers the course of investigation----the principles of judicial protection are being faithfully adhered to till date, therefore, grant of pre-arrest bail essentially requires considerations of mala fide, ulterior motive or abuse of process of law."

37. For what has been discussed hereinabove, we are of the view that the learned counsel for the petitioners Syed Khursheed Ahmed Shah as well as Syed Farukh Ahmed Shah have failed to make out any case for grant of the post or pre-arrest bail. Consequently, the Constitutional Petitions Nos. 44/2020 and 105 of 2020 stand dismissed. The interim pre-arrest bail earlier granted to petitioner Syed Farukh Ahmed Shah dated 20.09.2019 is hereby recalled.

38. Taking in hand the case of petitioner Muhammad Akramu Khan in (C.P No.D-103/2020), it is an admitted position that the NAB authorities have failed to produce any documentary evidence which may show that these are the authentic documents through which the petitioner was benefitted. On the other hand the claim of the petitioner is that the accused No.1 has given the said amount to deposit in election bank account and the same was deposited as per direction of the accused No.1 Furthermore, it is yet to be determined at the time of trial after recording the evidence either the amount deposited by the present petitioner in the Election account of the principal accused Syed Khursheed Ahmed Shah was kickback or given by the principal accused for such purpose. In such circumstances, the learned counsel for the petitioner has made out a case for grant of pre-arrest bail. Accordingly, the instant Constitutional Petition is allowed, consequently, the interim pre-arrest bail earlier granted to the petitioner is hereby confirmed on the same terms and conditions. The petitioner is directed to surrender his original passport with the trial Court and attend there regularly.

39. So far as the case of petitioners Syed Awais Qadir Shah and Syed Zeerakh Shah (C.Ps. Nos.D-104 and 106 of 2020) is concerned, we have perused the entire record minutely. The allegation against the petitioner Syed Awais Qadir Shah is that he has purchased an area of (100-00) Acres land from his uncle i.e. principal accused Syed Khursheed Ahmed Shah in the year 2005, whereas, the allegation against petitioner Syed Zeerakh Shah is that the principal accused being his real father has transferred an area of (28-38-1/4) Acres agricultural land situated in Deh Khahi Jagir, Taluka Rohri in his name. Furthermore, the properties have been transferred in the name of Syed Awais Qadir Shah in the year 2005 and the NAB has started investigation from the year 2008 and onwards. There is no denial on the part of the NAB authorities that at the time of transfer of land in favour of the present petitioners, they were quite young and dependent upon the principal accused Syed Khursheed Ahmed Shah, hence the role assigned to the present petitioners will be determined at the time of trial after recording the evidence. Accordingly, the instant Constitutional Petition is allowed consequently, the interim pre-arrest bail granted to the petitioners is hereby confirmed on same terms and conditions. The petitioners are directed to surrender their original passports with the trial Court and attend there regularly.

40. We have minutely examined the allegations against Bibi Talat (C. P. No.D-107/2020). The perusal of the record shows that the petitioner Bibi Talat while recording her statement has disclosed that she is a housewife but accused No.1 Syed Khursheed Ahmed Shah has made her partner of Mukesh Kumar in the Messrs Insaf Cotton Jinners and Oil Mills Salehpat and accused Syed Khursheed Ahmed Shah is the purchaser of the properties and opening of the various accounts in her name, hence she has no concern with the alleged offence. It is an admitted position that the petitioner herself has stated that she is a housewife and accused No.1 Syed Khursheed Ahmed Shah being her husband has purchased the properties in her name and it is yet to be determined after recording the evidence whether the present petitioner is benamidar or actual owner of the properties. In such circumstances, the case of the petitioner requires further inquiry and she is entitled for the concession of pre-arrest bail. Accordingly, the instant Constitutional Petition is allowed consequently, the interim pre-arrest bail earlier granted to the petitioner is hereby confirmed on same terms and conditions. The petitioner is directed to surrender her original passport before the trial Court. The petitioner is directed to attend the trial Court regularly.

41. We have perused the record and nature of allegations against petitioner Syed Khalid Hussain Shah (C.P No.D-108/ 2020) is that he is Benamidar and mastermind of the benamy purchase of the (65-00) Acres land in Deh Goserji along with other benamidars and principal accused Syed Khursheed Ahmed Shah. Besides that transfer of benamy land from his share to Syed Khursheed Ahmed Shah in an illegal manner but no such documentary proof has been brought on record by the NAB during the investigation and only statements of the witnesses are available on record which reflects that the petitioner has remained benamidars of accused No.1 Syed Khursheed Ahmed Shah, hence it is yet to be determined after recording the evidence before the trial Court. In such circumstances, the learned counsel for the petitioner has made out a case for grant of pie-arrest bail. Accordingly, the instant Constitutional Petition is allowed consequently, the interim pre-arrest bail granted to the petitioner is hereby confirmed on same terms and conditions. The petitioner is directed to surrender his original passport with the trial Court and attend there regularly.

42. So far as the case of petitioner Bibi Gul Naz (C.P No.D-110/2020), we have perused the entire material available on record. Admittedly, during the investigation the petitioner Bibi Gul Naz has appeared before the Investigating Officer and has stated that she is a housewife, she does not have any declared sources of income but started purchasing of valuable properties. In fact, the principal accused Syed Khursheed Ahmed Shah has purchased all the properties in her name. Further during arguments, though the learned counsel for the petitioner has claimed that from her sources of income she has purchased the said properties but while recording her statement before the Investigating Officer she has clearly stated that she is a household lady and learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that she is pardanashin lady, hence the role assigned to the present petitioner will be determined at the time of trial after recording the evidence, either she is Benamidar of the accused No.1 Syed Khursheed Ahmed Shah or she has purchased the valuable properties from her sources of income. Accordingly, the instant Constitutional Petition is allowed, consequently, the interim pre-arrest bail granted to the petitioner is hereby confirmed on the same terms and conditions. The petitioner is directed to surrender her original passport with the trial Court and attend there regularly.

43. Admittedly, the claim of the NAB Authorities against the petitioners in (C.Ps. Nos.D-1850/2019 and 111/2020) is that the amenity plot was converted into residential plots, but no member of the Society is nominated as accused in the Reference. Furthermore, the claim of petitioner Nisar Ahmed and his sons is that they had purchased four plots from the Society and such payment was made, subsequently sold-out the same to co-accused namely Waqar Rahim and others and they are the bona fide purchasers of the said plots, whereas, the amenity plot still exists in the Map, hence it is yet to be determined at the trial after recording evidence whether the petitioners are bona fide purchasers or they are the benamidars of accused No.1 Syed Khursheed Ahmed Shah. In such circumstances, the C.P. No.D-1850/2019 and C.P No.D-111/2020 are allowed, consequently, the interim pre-arrest bail orders earlier granted to the petitioners namely Rahim Bux, Waqar Rahim, Muhammad Saqib, Nisar Ahmed Pathan, Muhammad Shoaib, Zuhaib Meer, Saqib Raza and Tufail Ahmed are hereby confirmed on same terms and conditions. They are directed to regularly attend the trial Court and so also surrender their original passports with trial Court i.e. Accountability Court, Sukkur.

44. The allegation against petitioner Abdul Razzak Bahrani (C.P. No.D-113/ 2020) is that he being a Contractor paid Rs.2500000.00 to accused No.1 Syed Khursheed Ahmed Shah as kickback and commission. From a perusal of record, it appears that the NAB authorities have not suggested that the petitioner was assigned any contract or any other assignment and in lieu, thereof the petitioner has paid Rs.2500000.00 to the accused No.1 Syed Khursheed Ahmed Shah as kickback. Further, the petitioner claims that he had given a cheque to one Allahdino Katpar for payment of material supplied to him viz. Hill Sand, Crush and Stone and he has written the amount on the cheque by leaving the named place as blank. On the other hand, the NAB authorities allege that the said amount was given as kickback. At bail stage, only tentative assessment is to be made and it is yet to be determined at the time of trial whether the cheque was given by the petitioner for payment of material supplied to him by one Allahdino Katpar or it was a kickback. Learned counsel for the petitioner has made-out the case of one of further inquiry. In such circumstances, the Constitutional Petition No.D-113/2020 is allowed. The petitioner Abdul Razak Bahrani is admitted to post-arrest bail subject to furnishing solvent surety in the sum of Rs.2500000.00 (Twenty Five Lacs) and PR bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of trial Court. The petitioner is further directed to surrender his original passport before the trial Court viz. Accountability Court Sukkur and attend there regularly.

45. The observations made hereinabove are tentative and shall not prejudice the case of either party at the trial.

MH/K-40/Sindh Order accordingly.