Mohammad Aslam (Petitioner) VS NAB and Ors (Respondent)

/'l

IN'IItII IIIGII COUITT OF SINDH AT KARACHI Betbre: Mr. Iustice Ahmed Ali M. Shaikh, CJ' Mr. Justice Mohammad Karim Khan Agha J

Cl'D- Nos. tt lrr n ith Detitioucrs.

l. C.P. No. D-6754 of20l5 Muharnmad Aslan Parekh S/o Abdul Razzaq Parekh

2.C.P. No. D-6819 of20l5 Muhammad llthlaq Memon S/o Haji Muhammad Farooq' llesDon(lcllts

NAB & another & Irederation olPakistan & ilnother' Counsel foI thc Dctitionels

l. Mr. MLrhammad Ashral' Kazi, Advocate alongwith petitioner in C'P. No.D-6754 oi2015.

2.Mr. Haider Waheed. Arlvooate alongwith petitioner in C P No D-6819 o12015.

Couusel fo!' thc llcsDoD(lents.

IO'

Mr. Muhaminrd Altai, SpecialProsecutor, NAB alongwith Jawad Llasan' Drteofhcarillg: 15.08.2017 Dateol'order: 22-08-2017

ORDDII

we propose to Moharnnred Karim KhanAgha. J. By this common order' dispose of the above mentioned petitions submitted on behalf of the

petitione$ (Mohamn.red Aslam Parekh petitioner No 1 and Muhanmed of their ad Ikhlaq Memon petitioner No.2) respectively tbr the confirmation dated 29-10-2015 interim pre arrest bail grarted by this Court vide orders and 20-I I-2015 respectivelY.

2.The case in hard was initially taken up by the Anti-Coruption Establishrnent (ACE) Karachi through FIR No 48 of 2015' in which

challan No.03/2016 was strbmitted in the Court of Special Judge Anti- with Cornrption (Plovincial), Karachi against both the petitioners along other co-acoused. The case was later transferred to the National AccouDtability l3uLeau (NAB) under section 16-.4 (a) of the National Accourtability Ordinance 1999 (NAO). W

ls

3.Alter iinher investigation the NAB filed Reference No.46l2016 State Verscs Ashlhq Ali Ansnri ard others on the allegations of corruption and corfilpt pmctices by the petitioners and the other co-accused under S.9 oflhe NAO on 18-01-2017.

4.As per the reference the brief facts of the case are that Plot No.29, F'T-3, Frere Town Qua[ters, Ciifton, (Old Survey No.4), is owned by KMC and was allotted to one Muhammad Rashid Chawla in the year l95l However, the allolment was cancelled by KMC as the allottee failed to fulfill the conditiors olallotment and ownership ofthe plot reverted back 10 KMC. Later on, l(MC constructed bungalows for its officers on the plot rvhich was uot tulttler allotted to auyone and remained ir the possessior of the KMC.

5.Accolclilg to the NAB in the year 20ll-12, a conspiracy was plannecl to acqLrire this plot by some private persoDs (including the petitioners) in connivance with government officials by misusing there authority ir order to make huge illegal profits (benefit) lbr both the Government ollicials and the petitioners who are beneficiaries of the scam. The plan in essence was to make fake entries in lhe BOR through fofged and fabricatecl documents in order to tra[sfer the plot from the ownership of the KMC to diflerel)t fake owners and then to sell olr the plot to Ms Maple Developurertt ( t'\ I , LId it il llrrow awry price

6.Accoldir]g to NAB in esserce atter the plot rcverted baok to KMC as mentioned above the mocjus operandi set out below lvas used by the accused (including the petitione$) in the reference in order to coruptly and illegally acquire ll,e plot ct a lhro\ away price.

7.Accusecl No.l Ashfaq Ali Ansari who at the time ofthe scam was the then A<lclitional Director Land at KMC connived with the other' co-accused (inclLtcling the petitioners) in the refereuce to illegally transl'er: the plot which was legally owned by the KMC through making fake entries in the rccords ol lhe BOll showing l-alse and fictitious pulchasers through false and fictitioLts Luuegisterecl sale deeds whereby the plot was put in the narne of accuse.l No .2 Ms. Mut-tll-Zehra without payitrg any aonsideration to KMC u4ro gave a t'at<e aud illegal power of attomey to Mohammed Rafique accused No.4 lo sell the plot (which she had no legal title or w

t1

illterest il-I) who in turll gi]l/e a sub Powe[ of attorney to Mohammed Aslan the Plol to Parekh (accused No.5 and petitioner No.1) enabling hi[r to sell Mohamned lshlaq Memon (accused No 6 and petitioner No 2) being a Director of Maple Developruents (Pvt) Ltcl at a throwaway price which lead

to a huge loss to the KMC aDd gave a huge benefit to the other accused especially petitioners 1 ard 2 (petitioner I leceived 4 crores for a plol plot which he had no valicl legal title to ard petitioner No 2 received a with vahled at approx one billion rupees) Hence tl!e acoused in connivance each other had co[1r11itted acts of corruption whiah fell within the ambit of

tlre NAO alrd l]erce the NAB filed the abovetnentionecl ref'erence' tl. We hitve heltt',;l tllc Pilrlics ilrtl hale cruelirlly qilrle throtlSh thc petilioner recol.(l. ln essellce lcarned coinlscl lbr Moh0olmed Aslam l'alek)l No.l contenilc(l tliilt pctilioller No.l wirs uretcll'a sllb illtorlley ilnd wn\ conipletely Llllr\vare ol' lny \ rl1)lig cloilg and ls sLLch he \\'ils clllirel)'

irluocert aitd petitionc[ No.l's acl iulerillt P[e arresl bail shoLrld bc

conliLmerd. In esseticc leartted cortnsel lbt Mttllaurttrcrl lkhlaLl Nlenlon

cr No.2 conttll(led thilt l)etitiorlcr No 2 hatl tttr littrr|'letllle ol ltttl Pctitio sclttttlltrtls,ascllljlel)illlio0cnt.lllllthewilsitilottaiiclcpLtl'chiLsct.ol.llte plot rrtd hlil cletr llletl civil slril No ltl23/2ill5 on bcltirll ol MS N4lplc

l)rvelopule111 (p\rt) l.ir]li1!:(l itg,ainst the Provirlcc t)l Sirldh anLl l(MC lirr (lecilrlltiorl. ilutnagcs itllcl pt'rnlilllclll iliiLlll0tioll agaitlst the t(Nl( dispositrg ol the plot r\hich ht clitittlerl lo Llit!e llrttcltasecl ltltcl tvhich lcrsc ol lialachi ilgrcclllcllt/sale rleetl iracl becn oancellecl by the Coltltlissiotrel thus Dilisiou ott 0l:06-2016 fix rvhich he hlcl beeu givctt iuleriln reliefaucl pctitionel No.2 \\'ils clllitlcd'1o lhc conijttnltiotl o1 his 0Ll irlorilll llrc illlesl

bril. On tLe olhcr hiillcl sPcciol prosectltor lor the NAB irad veheLlleutly

oppose(l lltc conlillllotiorl ol bail to either of thc petitione$ tts accorcliug to urassivc loss to tllc:

hiru tltis rviis a lalcl grabbing sclul l'hiclt hlcl cirusecl 1o lilili bolll KNlal lncl lllcl-e \Yos more thitll stllli0icllt mltct'iltl otl recor(l (lle t-rll'ense lb| rvhir':h thcy had beell chlttgccl Pclilioners 1 altl I to

9.llegreltrlblY i1 i:i ln illct'easillg Lrerl(l i11 Kilrilchi lo qrilh'lLrstlrP so citllcil larltl vnllllblc (ioverlnlsnl llind L)Y lllivirtc inilivitlrrlls antl the in olclcr trl rniilix \!ith the activc colll)i\Iflnoc ol'tLrc Covelnurctlt oiliciirls 01'lilc city l))' Llllke ltuge plolits auii creale havoc \\'ith the illliilshltcttrrc cLlrlinttortsly brrilililg conrtuclciitl skysctapr:rs of cllorlllolls lllLllli sloried ol'sLtolt an lct \\'lii'h 0prrtllrcnt buil(lillgs. Il1 oLtr vidv this is a classic case w

\!ouU liol llrve bcelt PossihLe \\'itllotll lhc ll0tivc colitrivattee lud involvcment of ltll the auoLrseLl ill ths reLillcllcc ivho t'itch lllaved ir lole in lh( ol'[clse 1o ir i,lrL:irl!'r'or lesscr t\1el]l illl(l ilrc thLls lll irllliriLhrally liahle li,r th!- olltnsc lirl ulticll lllcl llar c hetrt chalgerl.

10.lt is now well settled law that pre arrest bail is au extraordinary relief anrl is only available itl cases wl]ere there has been lltalafide ol the palt of' lhe conplainant oI the police. ln this regard refererce tnay be lnade to the case of case of Ratta Motammerl Arshatl V MuhamDed llaliqrre

(PLD

2009 SC 427) rvhich held 8t P. 431 that the following contlitiotts need to be satisfied before pre auest bail aan bL'grarltecl as set out below:

"9. Even since then, the said interyretalion so made, the said powers so fbuml ancl the paratreters so prescribed, have beeu legularly and repeatedly coming up for sclLltiny by the Superior CoLr[ts inclLtcling this Cour1. But each time the nlatler was re-examinecl, the silme was only re-atlilned. 'llle said concePt as it was initirlly propouncled; rs it developecl and as the same stands today, lray be sutntnar:ized ibt' the benefit olr$ oll as rtndet:--

(r)grant ol bail belbte arrest is an extraotdinary reliel'to lrc granted orly in extraorclinary silualiolls to protcc' iuoccnt persous against victimizttion through abttsc of lnw for lllterior ulotiYes;

(b)l)r'c-rr'r'cst blil is not lo l,c usc(l :l\ fl sul'slillllc or as lll xltcr!rllivc lbr post-llrrcst blil.

(c)bail bcfole arrcst cau llot be grauted unless the person scchiug it s:ltisli0s thc conditions sPccilicd subscction (2) ofiection 497 of Cotle ol'Criminal Procedure ie' rrriless he eslablishes the existence of leosonabie groLlllds leadiug to a beliei thal ltc rvas rol guiltv of the ol'ldice allegecl against hiln aud that thete tfere, in lact, sui'ticiert grouncls warrantiug further: inquiry inlo his guilt;

(d)tlot jusf this l-rut i[ atklition thcreb, he must nlso sllo$' th{t his atrest rvas bcing sought lbl ulttrior nrotivc, I)articulnl ly on the pnrt of the police; to cxuse irreplrnble hunrili:rtion to hitn alrtl to disgrace and dishonor hinr;

(e)such r petitioner shoulcl tiuther eslablish thal he had rot clone oi sutlerecl ary ilct wllich would disertitl€ him to a

cliscretionary lelief in eclLrity e.g he had no past crimiral recorcl ol that he hacl not been a fugitive at law: and finally that;

(i)in the absence of a reasonable and jtLstiliabie catrsc, a person clcsiritrg his adrnission to bail lrelbre alrcst. nllrst' in the llrst instance aPproach the Courl of tll.st illstant ie' the Coutt 1]fsession, betbre Petiti()nillg the lligh Court lor . the furfose."(buld added) v7

z\

11.'fhe lequilement of nalalicle iu older to quality lbr pre a[est bail has recel1tly beer emphasized by the IJon'ble Suprelne CotLIt iu the casc ol i t, Mukhtrr Ahrua(l v. The State ar(l olhtrs (2016 SCMR 2064. relcvant f I page 2066) as urder:-

"....... This Coult has repeatedly declared that the concessiorl of pre-aflest bail cannot be allowed lo an accused pelson ulless the coutt lcels satislled ilbout serioLrsness of the accused pemotr's asse ion regarding his intended aflest beirg actuated by mala lide on the part ofthe complahant party or the local Police"

ll. ln lliis clrse rreilhct gretitiorct No. l not Ielilionct' No.l ltits bcctr able l() lnillie ilny clse ol nralaliile ()u1 iluilillst thc NAI]. l11 lxcl lllc colnPlc'tr lrrck Lrl ntrlitiitlcs ol llic piirl ol lhe NAII is sllrtrtt b\' (hc llel lllill lhe) iriliated the iuqLLirl'ort a conlllllinl iu cottttectitln tvitlt tlll allole latltl scrtttl lcceilerl liom lrnnspircnc\ irlcr0ltli(xlNl iirl(l did llot iniliLltc tli!' inqtlir)' rLguillst thc accLtsetl on thciI owll lllotioll ln ailditiorl illonts wilh the NAI'l irtqLrily l plrirllel iutltiq' rvirs also beiltg crtuiecl out by tlte ACLI ['hich hrrrl ht.'n tlitectetl to cilrry ollt tlle sonlc l)) tlle l(\4L' rrn lhe (lilecliolls ot thc L'orrnrissitrttct ol l(aiitclli ill 1ll!'lil1lc tvltcn he cltnccllctl all thc illcgrrl eItries il] lllc lloll re!lis(cr. Irtllthcrlllorc all tlte itccttsed in tl)c rclir!'llcc iuclucling ltetiLiottets I rtutl 2 ri'clc alrcatl) cltlllr.rtrccl br' 1he A('l:i rvhell N.,\lJ tllnslilrcrl lhc casc trntlcl S.l6 (A)(a) NAo 1br itsell to (leirl will)' I l. llltts. sinct llrerc hits [reen no ttlitlitlirlc otl llle P0l{ ol the Nr\l} irl thrs cirse lhc ircl intc'tillr l)rc irlfcst bxil ()l 1)tlilioncts No.l itntl 2 tlesen'es 1o Lrc lecirLlcd,.ttr tlris gt'ottrrcl alot4,

l-1. lt is also illlcrcslillg 10 note thill ult ol tlle 8 accttscrl in tlte relet'tllce t o1'llreru havc abscortilctl artd becn declltell ploclltittled ollendcts Lry thc Lri0l courl. thill irnothcl ilcctlscLl S1'.ccl Zeesltatr Ilirider Naqvi rvho lllegetlly took Lhc lanrl reoot'rl booli nrvay liom {he KN4C to ctrnccal tlre illegirl lllollrle nls mil(lc bl thc l]Olt oll ilccLls(l No l Nit Atlsrtt i's tlit'ecliotl itltLl his1)etirion((l'510ti/l(r) iirt cotrllrtrialion ol'prc irrrcst irail llrecl belirtcLts irt llle sirlllc littte'irs tltc al)ovt lllcntiollc(l pelitirrtls ittrr'l \\rils l)rcsL'llt ill r()tlr{ \\,iler tll. pro0ec(li11gs hcgatt bttl itbscotltletl 1'rotlt tlte cottr't rt)oln (ltlrillg lll! p|r.rccctlirtgs ltntl thlts llltd ltis iltlctitlt prc itttcst bitil inlllle(liillelY r'cilllc'l 'l'irlt lvluharlnne(l Muieeb Ullah Siddique who was brolierirg the trar'rsitctior) between the Pafties adtnitted his guilt alld entercd into a w

voluntary retum with NAB thereby repayiug his sirare of the ill gotten gain which he illegally receivecl

15.Thus, the trial is now proceeding only against the petitioneN wherc the charge has been lramed and one witness has already been examined.

16.All the accused, inaludirg petitioners No. 1 and 2, have been given a specific role in the rei'erence, On a brief and tentatiye assesslnent of the rnaterial placed belore us it is evident that accused No.l Ashlhq Ali AnsaLi sert a thbricated lettcr dated 12-12-2012 to the Asst. Cornmissioner ancl Asst. Collectol grade one BOI{ that the plot had been sold on numerous occasiom and lastly to Acc[sed No.2 Ms Umtal Zehra which lead to thc BOR naking the relevant illegal entries in their recorcl in back date despite such entries being labricated and not appearirg in the I(MC record (which was hidden by accused No.7 Syed Zeeshan Haider Naqvi) as is made clear by the S.161 statenents of Muhammed Tariq Khan deputy director lease/lald saddar Il KMC, Rooh ul Ameen eazi, the then tapedar ciyil lines Karachi, Allah I{aliha Sipio the then Mukhtiarkar civil lines Karachi. Atnrllah Nohrio, thc then Assistant Comnissioner civil lines Karachi and Mohamnled Musa MukhtiaLkar civil lines Karachi.

l'1. Accused No.2 Ms Zehra, as per 5.161 strternent ol her husband Shabaz Mirza, could uot have putchased the plot as she was not in pakistar at thc time when according to the fake letter sent to the BOR by accused No.1 Ansari she allegedly purchased the plot. Furthemore, if her narne had been registered in the KMC records in 1989 there coultl have been rro question ofthe KMC deciding to auction the plot in 1996. This shows that Ms Zehra is therefore not the legal owner ofthe plot and she had no right to sell it yet she illegally gave a power of attorney to accused No.4 Mohauuned Raiique rvhich included the power to scll the plot \.vhich shows her corrnivance in this rllatter. lt is just comlron selrse tltat Ms Zehra rnusr have known Mr.Rafiq very well i[ order to repose such trust in him bearilg in mind the value of the plot which she allegedly owned ancl thus it is bul obyious that Mr.Ratique must have known that Ms Zehra was not the lawlirl orvler of the plot and that he was part of the plan to grab valuablc govelnDlent land at a throwaway price. Mr.Rafiq, then, quite incr.erlibly, inexplicably and illegally without the consent of Accused No.2 Ms Zehra ther in elI'ect delegated his power of attomey to Mohammed Aslam parekh

(L

l)(lilior)ct No.l bt riltr ol'.,rrh l)()\\cr ol'itl1olt.\,\\ltj!lt itrlill iuclrL.lctL tlre l Ioricr to sell the'Ir'1ypr.r1_r lltis illtgal Sub l)L)\,cr ()l it o )c\ i\its illctall! I c\ec0te(l l)\' irccLls!,d l'!liccb tIr lielltlill SLtb ltcgislrLrr L,lilion \,ilhouL t, t,-rlLtilirrg the plesence ol'!ls Zehlir lltr ltirtl riltrr thc ot.iginll ltrr*,cr. Lrl illtorrc\ to l\,lr.l{lli(l r trrrd l\.lr.Nllecb ltits lroN. ilbsc()I(l!.(l unrl htrs hecrr i.lcrlrrlcd l plocllrinterl ollcnder hy tirc (,orrr.l u ltitlr irll gocs ro sllr)\\, llis tr)ic itt lltis scrrrtr c5Ps1rinlll, 1r llle blol(cr b!,1\\,.u1 fctilioller I irnrl I Nlr. SicltliLltrc ls llelllion!'d aLtove hirs irllclcly clltcrc(l in1() a VI{ riitl: NAI} irr r()llnccli()|l rr illt lris Lrrrliru lirl ilcLi\ ilics colllt!,(le(i Nillt flte scillll.

Lij. NIoltallinre'cL Aslam Par.elih 1)ctiliorler No.l then thrurgl] this illegal srLb Iow.r ol'itltorrle! throitgll Sille 1)ccrl rluterl l5-t)6-l0ll(ihtr,l solrl tltc plol to IVluhllnn.(l llilrlaq Metron petitioner No.2 \!l10 lcLlritll), \\,ls ilctirr! on britall ol Nlaplc'l)rvclopnrenls (l)vt) l,t(l treing (nl!, ol ils ljircc{(jrs lr)r th. tl)lo\vil\!ily l)ri.e ol Its 4 cr!t-c rrlten thc'irtlrral l.rrice ol'the plol nt tllitl 1itt]e irs l)ar nlrlrli!'t !!lLLc \\iits ltpfrox IiS onc billiolr. Iltc litct thrtt l)!,titioncr.

N,.r.f lin$v tlritt the \\,hole tlcal $us lr scitDt is cvidcllrrd b_r,tlre siclc s.rlc ilurc!-nrenl tvhich lte t'l]letecl iltto \!ith pelilioncr No.i ilt thc 1illtr ol e\ceutior ol lhc' sllc rleerl \\,llercl)], Ile il!,I'cc(l lo Iil], ltSaj0 cfofc to pclilionct No.2 td i ellcct petilioDcr No.2 \vis rnil(lc his business partncr (o lhc lunc ol lls 50 ctole basccl oll thc l'trture rie\,elopurelt ol lhc plot ln thc cvcnt otilr,.l clolers ri,as paid. l'he above clcdrly indicrlcs that petitioncr No.l was not x boul li(le pLrrchlset sincc in cllect lle linc\\, lhe tlrre virlLre of llre lirDrl as |cllcctccl i thc sidc slle ilglccntcrt ltn(l ill cllcct 0lltelerl iDro PuILn.r[slriP $ith pelitionel No.] in conllcction \\,itli tllc lillLlrc tlet,eloI rurrl ol lhe plot rYlriclt Ir'olit Nhiclt $,orrkl hIi,e bccn ilt tll. rcgioll ol llS50 er!re \\'llicll \voul(l hll\c bern sl)lit ilccr)r(ling lo lhc sille iig].eenleIt bel\\,rcl] petiliolcls I lrrrl l. cncc il loss ol'itppro\ ItS one billiorr uls tntrserl to lhe IiN,lL'tlrrrrLrgh this illegal lra|sactillri. l{eceipts clurrll sho\! lhNt l.lS -l (rorc irits pitid lo pctiliulcr No.l l)\, 1l!-tiliotrer No.l *,hitlt petitiolcl NLr.l Lras porlirle(l ur(l \\,llo l)ilse(l oll tlte rccail)ts lxitl a share to th!r so cilllcll o\\, u. Nls Zehra and powcr oi atlolllev holdcr l{alique alcl lhc otltet ilccLtse(l \\ho \\'ere prrt ol'th!' sciuri illxl llitve llo\! absconrled. lt is quit!' ill]i)i[.nl hou,c!er tlrilt tlrc |r:al bcIcliciir|t, ol l]lc ctxrLrfl and illegll plan rs i\4rrhunnerl llihLrq \4ctlou peliliolter No.l rvho u,orrld hirve ntatlc l \\hopfing i{S50 crole plofit on thc lrnIlsootiol] s cviilcnccrl bl, sllc ilgreerncnt Icl'cIIctl lrr itbtrve rvhielr in tllict rlriulc l)ctilir)n.t's I lrtr(1 l i.ttsirtcss Ir.rILrrcIs iI lhe davcl()lirrcrrl ol tllis l]l{)!l !irlLrlLrlc lricec ol'Iarrd w

2q

loclted ncur leL,n lal\\ar.tiltich is oue ol llrc 1llos1 cxpeusii,e alrl soLrlltt ltlict arels in l(lrlehi. lt jusL tloes nol uppcal tu t0ilson thilt l)etitiolct No.f ru luentiel ltLrildel riould have entcr.crl illo srrclr I valLuble il ell.oct I pnrtrlcrsllil) ugr-L'culcrrt \\ith a sLtL) u(orncy \\,lto appatentl\ ltt- rlirl trtrl LnoN hclir|e tlre srlc. Srrr-lr Nn irgrccltelll irdcls lirL.thcr rvcighl lo Llte lilut llllt illl (hc rrectrscrl in lltt'r'clir.ence rlcrc iLr-:litrg iu connjvancc tvilh car.:h ollrcr.rLr illclulll,rrstrlp IiN4C lancl tl il tlllowa\vij), llrice in or.cler to nralic vasl pr.olits

19.|tom thr'tnalcr.iill placerl on lecorcl al1(i thc uto(lus operaurli ol the scanr it beggals beli(jl that a bujlder aud rleYcloper such ils Pctitioncr No.2 dr(l not kno\\,tlrnt lte wits ltrucltasiug llld rvilh rro legul tirle liom un illetal sub illlofr]cY lin il tliiowil\\ity pticc l(l tlltl hc t!ls a bona Iidc l)Urcltilser.

SLrlplisiltly lle has not 1rkcu au1, lcgal ircliolt itgitinst pelitioner.No2 rill, solrl hint 11te pktl ts strh attorncy. t)or accrrserl l(irlirl rvlrrr gllc tltc sLrlr itltol,l]eY lo pctitionct N().2 niir.Ms Zrlrr.ir $,lto iillegerilY o\\,ll((l lh. Plol u11(L corrnerl hinr irit() bit\ jl! thu plol \vlticl) sltc hacl lo \.lli(l lille to scll tltr.orrgh Iter- r'alirtrs shirm lrltonlc\''s. Allhorrglt clescliberl lls il l)rivlte l)crsoll { prtiti(rlcr No.l is irr liret bl,occLtpation a hrrililcr.,rileveltilter. lhrolrgli his (ol]]|un) Njll)lc l)c!clopntcnts (1,\,t) l_l(l .tnd ts sU!ll is nol sirlpll u r[Lire irdi\i(luxl pclsotl ILrlchasiug thc l)lot to brrild a llrntily resideuce. ln our vic\\,he \vils iln iutegral pur:t of the scant aI(l ts \vith thc othcr alccllscd ilr llrc Iellrelicc \\'ils well awilrc tltal the ion(l bclrrrrgcd to I(MC rvlten ltc putcltasttl it on bchnli of his c,lntpauv ltrr- tlcvelopnlcnt pLlt.poses at it throlr lrN,a1,p|ice.'lhLrs, iIi r.tL[ r,icrv both pctilioltcts ] ilnd I play(l un iltegr.al Iole lI t]ris rriLrlti billioti rU1leo ntegt seiuu i (l al tr Iti intlrni ll,cre bencllcialies ol lhr, sc'lrnt to the tltDe ol'tcns rrl t]]illions ol rLrpccs. As sLrclt Lrrrscrl on Lhe uratciial pllceil on lr-'coxl ilc arc al\o ol'llte vie\\, thitl Iritnir litcir' thelc is sullieiclll ntnt!'l itl to conncot bolh thc lctiliollers tr) th. cornluissiou ol thc ollense li)r \vlticll thcy lla\,!' beeu chrrlgccl tpitrt liout lhe lltcL rrl rurtlllirlc on thr l)irt ol NAII ls tliscirsscd curlicr..

20.Thus, lor the above reasons both ofthe aforesaid orders ofthis corut grauting ad interim pre a[est bail to Moharrrned Aslan Patekh petitiouer No.l and Muharnrned Ikhlaq lr4enon pet;tioner No.2 stand recalled wlth immediate eft'ect. The concenred trial ooutt is diected to complete the trial rvithin 4 uonths of the date of this order which in our view is suftlciert timc'bealiug ill lrild that lhere i]re only 2 accused and not ruany witnesses t(, be cxamined. L] p ftioular no adiour![ent should be allo\ved on aD\ t4

OC

llirnsr yr', r. , ,,t tll) ord.r sllilll l)e selll lo lhc collccltlnl Accoulltrii.... . . r .L)ni|liilrlct hv MIi ll.

21.fLrril-:'r,,r.,re \c llote lYith collc!'l-Il that dcsPitc beillg tile(l mole lillln I rcaLr.r:.r al1(i iili ex piirle sll), (Jr(lcr beillg gtalltecl i| iavotlr oi Maplc l)e\cl.)pnt.nt (l'vt) I.inrite(l Suit No.1823/2015 Illts not been t'ixetl i,r' helring during lhis 2 year period being, "discharged as clisctlssed \Yitil I Iigh Ct,un Bar," by Assistant lLegistLa[ Ilosler. Iinclc| tllese circlrrrstruces wL] hereby dircct the oifice to llx lhis Suit ibr liealirlg on 29-08-2017 at l1:00 a.m. beible the co[cernecl bench of this court as per rostel wllich bench shirll proceed \.vith this suit expedititrtsly rttd dispose ol the saule withir l luoDths olthe (latc olthis order'.

22.It is uiitdo cleitl that this or(lcr is brseil only orr ll tcnlllive assr'ssmcut ofthe ntirtetial placetl bul'olc tls all(l u'ill llave ttil bcilring oll the lrill o1 thc petitiorcls rl'hich shall trc decitled [r! lhe lriill crrLtrl on tletit brrscil or lhc cliileucc bclirrc il.

23.Both the petitions stand disposed of in the above teuns JUI](i

CFII f]F s t,rfut