HASSAN RAZA vs THE STATE
The applicant sought post-arrest bail in Accountability Reference No. 39 of 2001, arising from allegations that the main accused acquired properties beyond his known means of income in the names of co-accused persons, including the applicant who allegedly held a flat purchased with funds provided by the main accused. The core legal question was whether purchasing property in one's own name using borrowed money from a person accused of corrupt practices falls within the penal provisions of the National Accountability Bureau Ordinance, 1999. The Sindh High Court held that borrowing money from the main accused to purchase property in one's own name does not attract clause (b) of section 10 of the National Accountability Bureau Ordinance, 1999. Furthermore, noting that a similarly situated co-accused had already been granted bail, the court admitted the applicant to post-arrest bail subject to surety, laying down the principle that tentative assessment of borrowing for property acquisition does not constitute an offence under the cited provision.
- Does purchasing property in one's own name through borrowed money from a person involved in corrupt practices fall within clause (b) of section 10 of the National Accountability Bureau Ordinance, 1999?
- Is an accused entitled to bail on the rule of consistency when a similarly situated co-accused has already been granted bail?
- Section 10(b), National Accountability Bureau Ordinance 1999
ORDER
1. ' The applicant is one of the accused persons in Accountability Reference No,39 of 2001. Main charge in that reference is against Iqbal Ahmed Turrabi and the charge is that he acquired property of value beyond his known means of income and he acquired the property in his own name as well as in the name of co-accused person including the present applicant. The property in the name of present applicant is Flat No,N-4, Falalnaz Centre Sharah-e-Faisal, Kaiachi of the value of Rs,20,00,000.
2. ' Mr. Abdul Haleem Siddiqui, learned counsel for the applicant, submits that the flat has been purchased to the present applicant in his own name and for that purpose he borrowed money from Iqbal Ahmed Turrabi. He submits that it is not the property of Iqbal Ahmed Turrabi purchased in the name of the applicant.
3. ' Mr. Amir Raza Naqvi, learned Advocate representing the NAB opposes the bail plea and submits that the flat has been purchased by Iqbal Ahmed Turrabi and he paid Rs,16,00,000 which is admitted by the applicant as mentioned in the statement reproduced in his bail application.
4. ' The statement of the applicant reproduced in the bail application mentions that Iqbal Ahmed Turrabi had paid Rs,16,00,000 which he would adjust from the applicant subsequently. From the statement, it appears that it was borrowing by the applicant for purchase of the flat which is in his own name. Mr. Amir Raza Naqvi relied upon clause (b) of section 10 of the National Accountability Bureau Ordinance, 1999.
5. ' The case of the present applicant does not appear to fall within the definition given in this clause and a case of purchase of property by any person in his own name through borrowing from a person involved in corrupt practices is not covered by the provision. Co-accused Ziauddin also claimed that property in his name was his own property, and he has been granted bail in this case.
6. Case of the present applicant does not appear to be materially different from the case of that co- accused. The applicant is therefore, admitted to bail subject to furnishing surety in the sum of Rs,500,000 (Rupees five lac only) and P.R. Bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Nazir of this Court. Applicant shall appear before the trial Court on the dates of hearing. Findings hereinabove are tentative and will not prejudice the case of prosecution under trial.
Cited by 2 cases
- SHARJEEL INAM MEMON Versus NATIONAL ACCOUNTABILITY BUREAU 2018 PCrLJN 34
- FARRUKH SAYYAR KHAN vs THE STATE and another 2005 MLD 519