2010 PLP 1623 (MLD)

RAHMAT HUSSAIN JAFFERI, J.

The petitioner has filed the present petition for grant of bail, as he has been involved in a reference No. 9 of 2001 filed by the Chairman NAB before the Accountability Court No. II Karachi.

2. Brief facts giving rise to the present petition are that the petitioner was appointed as A.S.-I. in police department in the year 1959. He retired in the year, 1998 as Superintendent of Police. It is alleged that the petitioner during the period of his service accumulated moveable and immovable properties disproportionately to his legitimate source of income. It is further alleged that he had acquired 11 properties from the years, 1972 to 1996. The details of which are mentioned in the reference and body of the petition.

3. We have heard the advocate for the petitioner, DPGA for the NAB and perused the record of this case very carefully. The learned advocate for the petitioner has stated that the first two properties mentioned in the reference, were acquired in the year, 1972 and 1984 being inherited and gifted properties, which were acquired by the petitioner through his father. He has further stated that the remaining properties are either owned by the petitioner or by his sons but the same were purchased from the legitimate sources of income which were duly declared before the competent forum including the Income Tax Department, therefore, the petitioner has committed no offence hence he is entitled to the concession of bail. Conversely the learned DPGA has stated that the first two properties mentioned in the reference are either inherited or gifted properties acquired by the petitioner from his father but the remaining properties were purchased by the petitioner from illegal gotten money which he acquired through corruption while remaining in the police department. He has further stated that the sources of income alleged by the petitioner are fictitious and no proof has been filed therefore the same cannot be considered at this stage hence he has requested for the dismissal of the petition.

4. We have given due consideration to the arguments gone through the material available on the record and found that the petitioner has admitted that the properties mentioned in the reference are either owned by him or by his sons. He took the plea that he purchased the properties from his legal sources of income. The Petitioner has shown the sources of income in the petition and reiterated by his advocate. The said sources of income are as under: (1) Income from Nazar Public Private School, established in the year, 1957-58 but the same was acquired by the Government of Sindh in the year, 1972. The monthly income from the school was Rs.3,000 per month which comes to Rs. 36,000 per year. (2) Income from inherited agricultural land. (3) Business of construction started in the year, 1985. (4) Prize money of Rs.5 Lac from prize bonds in the year 1986. (5) In the year 1985, 4.5 acres or land in Landhi Industrial Area was sold for Rs.21,60,000. (6) In the year 1997, Plot bearing No.97/1 was sold for Rs.20,00,000. (7) Reward money of Rs.25,000 received in the year, 1968. (8) Reward money of Rs.37,500 received in the year, 1971. (9) In the year 1970, his brother gave Rs 50,000. (10) Received difference of pay of Rs.73,908. (11) In the year 1984, received Rs.90,000 as share from his father. (12) Received Rs.14 lac in terms of Gratuity, G.P. Fund and pension. (13) His son received Rs.12 lac on account of salary from his firm. (14) Received profits from the sale of shops etc. (15) Received U.S. $ 3,000. (16) Received money by selling shops and flats in the buildings.

5. It will be noticed that the first property purchased by the petitioner was 4 acres of land NA class No.24, in the year 1987. The petitioner has tried to show that the said property was purchased from the Agriculture income and the income received from running the school which was established before he joined the service. The next property was purchased in the year 1988. Two properties were purchased in the year 1989. Three properties were purchased in the year 1992. One property was purchased in the year, 1995 and one property was purchased in the year 1996.

6. From perusal of sources of income shown by the petitioner, they appear to be sufficient to purchase the single property in the year, 1987 or single property in the year, 1988. However, this requires evidence and deeper appreciation of evidence, which cannot be undertaken at this stage because it might prejudice the case of the parties. At Bail stage, only tentative assessment is to be made from the material available on the record and from that assessment, we are of the considered view that the petitioner is entitled to the concession of bail.

7. In the light of what has been discussed above the interim bail already granted to the petitioner is confirmed on the same terms and conditions. The petition is allowed. H.B.T./N-36/K Bail confirmed.