Yacoob Suttar (Petitioner) VS Fed. of Pakistan and Others (Respondent)

ll B

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH AT I(ARACHI

Present:

Mr. lustice Mohammad l(arim Khan Agha Mr. usticc Zul ar Ali San l,

C.P. No.D-381.3 of 2019,

I)etitioner Yacoob Sr-rttar thnrugh N4r. Sannad Hani, Acivocate I(t,spc r n111.111s7 51.11" l:iecleration of I)akistar-r ancl others througlr M/s. Zahiel l-lussain Baladi and Suttar Muharnmad Awan, Special Plosecutors NAII assisted by Mr. Aclnan Hafeez Abbasi, I.O.

C.l'. No.D-1048 of 2020 f I)etitioner Sheikl'r Imran-ul-l{aque through M/s. Muharnmad Ashraf I(azi ancl Irsl-rac1 Ahrrrecl Jatoi, Aclvocates.

Ilesponclents/ Sta te Ircclr:ratitin oi Ptrkistan anci others through M/s. Zahicl l-lussain Balacli arld Suttar Muhammael Awan, Special Prosecutors NAB assisted by Mr. Aclnan I lafeez- Abbasi, I.O.

C.l'. No.D-2582 of 2020.

['c'titione r: Shahici Khaclarr Abbasi through Mr. I(hawaja Naveeel A.l-rmr.c1, Aclvocate.

Ilt:sponclents/ State Clrarrrlan NAli anel others tluough M/s. Zahicl I-Iussain Balacli ancl Suttar Muhammacl Awan, Special Prosecutors NAB assisted by Mr. Adrran IJafeez Abbasi,l.O.

) C.l'. No.D-2583 of 2020.

Irctitioncr Arshacl Mirza througl.r Mr. Khawaja Naveecl Ahrnecl, Acl voca te.

lles ponclents/ Sta te Clrairman NAB ancl others througlt M/s. Zahitl Hussain Baladi anc.l Suttar Muhammad Awan, Special Prosecutors NAB assisted by Mr. Aclnan Hafeez, Abbasi, I.O.

Dates of healing: 27.08.2020 and 03.09.2020

Date cli announcement: 03.09.2020.

I

il1

ORDER

Mohammad l(arim Khan Agha, J.- Petitioners Shahicl Khaqan Abbasi (Abbasi) ftrrt.ner Ministel of Petroleur.n, Alshacl Mirza (Mirza) (former Secretary Petroleunr) ancl Yacoob Suttar (Suttar) (former DMD IISO) l-rave all approachecl this court for confirmation of their pre arrest bail which was earlier grantecl to tlrcnr by this court. Wheleas Shaikh lmran-ul Ilaque (Imran) former MD PSO who earlier l'racl been orciercrl not to be arrestecl by NAB by this court seeks conf inned pre arrest bail.

2.The very brief facts o[ the case as allegecl in National Accountability lJut'eau (NAB) Reference 05/2020 State V Shahid l(haqan Abbasi and others are that petitionel Abbasi in collusion ancl connivance with petitioner Mirza rnisusecl tl.reir authority by illegallv appoir.rting and promotirlg resPectively beneficiary petitioners lrnran (who allegeelly hael a conflict of interest with l5O) and Suttar in PSO with a t,iew to irrtrociucing LNC into I'SO's busitress by violating the t'elevant rules antl r'egulations arrcl by paying tl-rem massive salaries whiclr causecl a loss to PSO and as such all the petitior-rers had committecl offences of corruption arrd corrupt practices under S.9 oi . tl.re National Accourrtability Olelinance 1999 (NAO) which had lc.ad to the aforesaicl reference being fileel against them by NAB which is now proceeding before the accountability coults irr Karachi.

3.Leamecl counsel for petitioner Abbasi submitteel that tl-ris and another reierence which hacl been filed against him in Islarnabacl hacl been filed by NAB on account of rnalafide because he was a senior opposition politician who spoke or.rt against the present Governrnent arrci neecle.cl to be siler-rcee1. The malafide was also clear from the fact that there was absolutely no tangible evidence against lrim in this reference which had been filec'l simply to keep him under Pressure.

I

With regarcl tt> the appointment of petitioner ltnran as MD this was clotle through aclvertisement which petitioner Lnran clualified for; that l-re hacl nothing to tlo with the short listirrg of Imrarr pursuant to the advert as the short listing was carriec.l out by a reputable iinn of head hunters who shortlisteci 6 names out ttf the applicants; that art that time the Boarcl of Management (tsOM) of I5O hacl been clissolved by the l,-ecleral Government and during this period Shahid Islam was acting MD of l'SO ar.rrl hacl full authority to act as MD PSO in the absence of tlie BOM; that the sholtlistec'l names were corrsiclerecl by petitioners Abbasi ancl Mirza out of which 3 aftcr careful consitleration of their CV's ancl other

tlualifications ancl experiarce were sent for consic'leration to the Prime Minister -r. (irM) for final selection who ap;.rointec'l petitioner Imrarr as MD PSO as opposecl to the other two whose names were put forward; tl-rat all relevant rules ancl regulations were followed so fal as possible keeping in view that there was some ar-r.rbiguity whether the de.cisions should have bee'n macle by a Board of Directors unclel the Comparries Act or the BOM unclel the Malketir-rg of Petroleum I)roclucts (Federal Control) Act '1974 and the fact that the BOM hacl beer.t clissolvecl; that all necessary surnmalies were moved ancl were duly approvecl;

that there was no eviclerrce to show that petitioner Abbasi had influenced either the heael hunters, Secretaly Mirza or even the PM concerning the appointrnent of petitioner lmran and that if the appointmerrt was illegal then the PM sl.rould also have beetr incluclecl in the reference; that petitioner Irnran was well clualified for tlte job ancl performecl very well by increasing PSO's profits; that petitioner II.nran was alreacly earning approx R313 lacs in his position as SEVP at Engro ancl as suclr his salary was not excessive arrcl was in line with market late salaries (as per the aclvertisc'me n t) pairl to other MD's of oil companies anc'l as such pctitrriner lrnlan harl r.rot benciiteel by being appointeel as MD of ['SO; that thc'r'e was no allegation that petitior.rer Abbasi hacl personally gainecl out of the appointrnerrt and as such on account of arry or all of the above reasons his pre an'r,st bail shoulcl be confirmerl.

4.Learnecl counsel for petitioner Mirza contencled that the only role ascribecl to .hirn was that he colluclec.l and connivecl with petitioner Abbasi to have pt'titiorrel hnran illegally appointecl as MD I1SO anrl tl'ra t the only rnaterial against hirn was that he and petitionel Abbasi after examining tl-re short list proviclecl by the heaci hunters forwarclecl 3 out of the 6 names to the PM for final st'lectiou; that hc rlicl not gain anything personally ancl folkrwecl all the relevar-rt rules of busirress in such ap[-rointments Lry movir-rg the relevant sununaries etc; I tlrat NAB had malafic'lely roped hirn into tl-re reference only because he helpecl firralize tl-re 3 short listecl r-rar.nes with petitioner Abbasi anrl thus for any or all of the above reasorls his pre alrest bail shoulrl be crtnfiuned.

5.l-ealnecl counsel for petitioner Imran contended that the petitioner hacl applied for tl.re position of MD PSO though an ac{vertisement in the newspa}rers, that he was clualifiecl for the job; that he was selected by the headhunters on tnt'rit .tttcl thet'eafter his name aloug with two others was forwarclecl to the PM ftu cousic'leration ancl he was cluly appoirrtecl; that he clid not influence anybocly

il tzl

experience in the oil and gas inclustry and management skills; that he dicl not r. benefit financially by the appointment as he was alreac-ly being paici a package of arouncl RS43.5 lacs pcrn at Ellgro which was his last job before joining PSO; that he hael no conflict of interest as he orlly left Engro and ioinecl f5O once the PSO relatecl work (if any) was over anrl his salary had been agleed; that after joining I5O PSO',s performance arrcl profits greatly improved; that he hacl bec'n malafir-lely ropecl into this reference sirnply because the NAB wanted to fix petiti()ner Abbasi who was a potitical oPPorlent of the current Goverument ancl thus for alty or all of the above reasons his pre arrest bail shoulcl be confirmecl

6.I..ear necl counsel for petitioner Suttar contencled that as acting MD he hacl full autl.rority to appoirrt pretitioner Imran; that he l-rad been promotecl in accorc'lance with law on merits and that lre hac-l Ieceived no undue benefit by { such promotioni that he had been rnalafidely ropecl into this refelence simply bccause the NAB wantecl to fix petitioner Abbasi who was a Political oPPonent of the current Government ancl thus for any or all of the above reasons his pre arrest bail shoulcl be confirmecl.

7.Ou the other hancl learnecl special prosecutor NAB contencled that petitioners Abbasi ancl Mirza in collusion ancl connivance hacl illegally ap;-'roirrtetl petitioner Imrarr by rnalaficle gettir-rg the BOM dissolvec'l as they wantecl Imran to help PSO errter into the LNG busiuess and as such had illegally rejectecl recommenclatior-is of the BOM for MD I'SO (before they dissolveci it) so that tl.re job coulc-l be re aclvertised in a manner tailored to suit Imran anr-1 that they could manipulate the illegal appointment of petitioner lmran who they paicl an uujustified heavy salary packagc to ancl illegally promoted Petitioner Suttar on accourlt of favoritisrn alrtl nepotism by enablirrg Petitioner lmran once appointerl MD PSO to clo the neeelful on their behalf and also by paying I petitioner Suttar a massive salary which benefited Petitioners Imran and Suttar at the expense of the State. In particular he contenclecl tl-rat the original aclvert for tl.re post ancl those who apprlieel unc'ler it were not consicleled anci a fresh arlvertisemerrt was macle in orcler to ensure Petitioner lmran's aPPointment; that the short listetl 6 narnes should have gone to the BOM for further consideration br-rt irrstc,ar'l they were illegally corlsiLlererl bV petitioner Abbasi and Mirza only witl.rout ir-rtelview ancl petitiollers Abbasi ancl Mirza illegally arrangecl for petitioner Lnran to be paitl a rnassive salary which utlduly benefitecl hirn a!$ caused loss to the State ancl as such the pre arrest bail of both Petitioners Abbdsi

IZL

8.With regarcl to petitior.rer Lnran he contenclecl that he was cornpletely untlualified for the post of MD I5O; that he l.raci been appointed out of favoritisrn ancl nepotism by petitioners Abbasi antl Mirza who hacl unduly favolecl him by misusing their autl"rority because they wanted to use his exPerience to enable I'SO to enter into the LNG business by not only appointing him but by paying hinr a massive salaly of I{S50 lacs wl.rich rvas cor.npleteiy ur-rjustifiec'l which causec{ a loss to the State; that he hat'l a conflict of interest with Engro and PSO whicl.r was c]etrimental to PSO anc.l as such the pre arrest bail of petitioner hnran should be recalled.

9.With regarcl to petitioner Suttar l-re contenrlecl that he hacl beetr illegally promotecl as DMD by petitioners Mirza and Imran out of nepotism in return for him approving tl-re appointment of Imran as MD PSO whilst petitioner Suttar I was acting MD PSO; that he was not qualifiecl for the job anc.l that lre hac-l been uncluly benefitecl by receiving a rnassive salary of RS7 lacs pcrn which causecl loss to the State ancl as such the pre'arrest bail of Petitioner Suttal shoultl bc' recallecl.

10.We have hearcl the al'guments for the parties, corrsiclerecl the recorcl along with tl're relevant lalv

11.At the outset we woulcl like to make it clear that this orc'ler is basec-l on rlnly a tentative assessrnent of the eviclence on recorci ancl shall have no bealing or-r the trial which shall be clecidecl by the trial court basecl on rnerit whilst consirlering the eviclence before it.

Iurning to the qrrestion of malafides

"12. It is settlecl law that pre arrest bail cannot be granted unless there has beeu L r.nalaficle on the part of the investigating agency, In this resPect reliance is placed on Rana Mohammed Arshad V Muhammed Rafique (PLD 2009 SC 427). YYe have notecl that petitioner Abbasi is an out spoken critic antl oPPonent of the cuuent Federal Govelnment; that another reference has alreacly been filed against him ir-r Islarnabacl in which he was irnprisonecl for 7 months before being granted bail ancl thereaftel tl-ris reference was filed and as such we cannot rule out rnalaficles on the part of NAB in orcler to put political Pressure on petitioner Abbasi to stay n-ru r-n anr.l keep-r llip incarceratecl especially as in our view the refererrce ancl the ev iclence agairrst him ar-rd the otl-rer petitioners is prima facie

t23

cogrlizant of the fact that such a situation has potentially recently been -?, rectrgnizccl by the Supremc. Court in arrother NAII bail case of Khawaja Salnran Rafique and Another V NAB clated 17.03.2020 in Civil Petitions No'2243L ancl 2986L where it was helcl as uncler at para 67;

"'l'ltc btrrentt secnrs relrrctfirtt in proceeding on one sirle oJ' tlu politicnl dipidc et,en irt rcsStr'ct oi.[irmncinl sL:tt,tts of fi tttttssile proporliotr wltiLe tlrcse orr tlrc otlrcr side nre bentg nrrested nnd incnrcernted for nnntlts nnd yenrs ruitltottt prottiding nny stt.ffictent cnuse."

13.Interestingly when the sPecial prosecutor NAB and the IO were confronted by this court as to how many references harl so far been fileel against the rnajority political partv irr both Sinclh anrl Pakistan despite allegations of corruption being rnat'le against mer.nbers of tl-rat political party tl'rey had no answer. Even otherwise rnalaficle is very harcl to prove and as such it can also be t inferleci from the facts anrl circumstances of the case and as such in this case we also rnake such an inference of rnalafide by the NAli against the petitioners whtr arc ol1 pre arrest bail who are in one way or another associatecl with petitioner Abbasi.

1,4. Turning to the case of Abbasi. Admittedly he was Minister for Petroleum when the appoir-rtment of petitiorrer Imral was made as MD PSO. The post was initially aelvertisecl ancl a nur.nber of applicatiorls were forwarded by a reputable .heacl hunter however petitioner Abbasi clicl rrot consider any of these applicants as accorcling to hirn a nurnber of thern hacl FIA ancl other criminal investigations outstanding against thern or were associatetl with the petrol crisis which lead ttr tlre riissolution of the BOM by the Fecleral Governmelrt. Thus, it was the Fecleral Governrnent acting through the, PM ancl not Abbasi who clissolvetl the BOM on accolrnt of the petr.ol crisis. Wl-ren confrontecl with this position NAB was unable to refute the same.'Ihis nreans that the whole founclation of NAB's case against I Abbasi that he wantecl to get the BOM out of the way so that he coultl appoint petitionc.r" Lnran to pursue ar.r LNG policy fol PSO collapses as it was the PM who r-lissolvecl the BOM with goocl leason or1 account of the petrol crisis which was wiclely publisl-recl thrtrugh the media who expected heacls to role' L.rterestingly the IO c1ic1 not evetr bother to interview the PM or treat him as a suspect. Even more interesting is the fact that these allegations form no part of the charge before the trial court which appears to be restricted to illegal appointments and financial loss dtre to excessive salaries. Thus, in our view petitioner Abbasi actecl aPPropriately in cliscarcling the applicants. Petitioner

t2g

Abbasi therr orc.lerecl the re-atlvertisemerrt of the post by wl.rich time the PM hacl -l ciissolvecl the BOM with gooc.l cause. It is true that the secor-rcl advertisement was tlifferent from the first advertisetnent however after comparing the two advelts we are of the view that in essence the seconcl ac"lvertisement only cliffered frorn the first aclvertisernent in that it r.t ic{enecl the scope of the job criteria ancl potentially allowec'l for more applicants to apply. Importantly, it still stressed that the applicant sl.rould have "profounr{ knowledge of oil and gas sector in I)akistan" and when read holistically in our view only allowed suitably qualifiecl applicants to apply although ft'om a wider field which in our view is no bacl thing as PSO is now wolking in a competitive environment allLl also needs to encourage private sector applicants to apply so that it can appoint the best people w,ith experience of the plrvate sector with wl-rich PSO is cornpeting. We note that, unlike in some cases, the advertisement has not been drafted in such a .,.,r1

manner so that very few persons such as petitioner Itnran coulcl apply as has be'en clone in the past in orcler to favour blue eyecl boys. In fact having examined 'I-he his C.V it appc't'rrs that petitioncr Irrrran clualific,cl uucler the ae{vertisement. recortl shows that petitioner Imran appliec'l for the job pursuant to the aclvertisernent anc.l that a reputable heacl hunter shortlisted him along with 5 othet.s where it was noted tl-ra t he was one of the top canclidates whilst 2 others were rroted to be alter.nate cancliclates, fhere is no evidence to suggest that pretitioner Abbasi or any other person ilfluenced the head hunter to short list I-retitioner Imran alorrg with the 5 others. Since the BOM had been dissolveel over the petrol crisis and PSO was in neecl of a full time MD (ancl petitioner Abbasi hacl been c'lirectecl by the PM to appoint orre within 3 months) in order to set out ancl irnplement its vision through a permanent MD the position of MD I5O neederl to be filler.l (toclay sacil,v a large number of Public Sector Enterprises remain with acting l'reacls ancl thus rer-nair-t ruclclerless vis a vis a lorrg terrn future I vision and strategy as a person holcling acting charge has no job security and another appointee calt revelse his strategy overnight) antl thus in our view it was not unleasonable for the Minister ancl his Secretary to sit down ancl consicler the short listecl applicants iu the absence of the dissolvecl llOM. Interviews may have been advantageous however these had alreacly been carried out by tl're heatl hunter ancl basecl on the particular facts and circumstances of the case where petitioner Abbasi ah.eacly knew the qualities anc'l experience of all 6 short listecl canr.liclates such interviews basecl on the particular facts ancl circumstances of this case tlo not appear to be absolutely nece'ssary especially as the BOM hacl r-...-.- I:-,-..-r-.^.r ^.--t ^^ -,,^t- .-,. ,.,.1^^+i^- l ^--,.1 -,.,,1,1 l-- f^..no,l on,-l flroir. r,rrorp

t>i

time constraints in making the appointment and thus there was prirna facie \ rrothing particularly repufinant in the 6;iven circumstances in the Minister ancl Secretarv consiclering the applicants through their cletailecl CV's three of whom wele folwarclerl to the appointing authority for consitleration i.e the PM. It is significant that 3 names went forwarcl for consideration and not just the name of petitioner lmran anc'l it was the I)M's discretion ttt appoiut any one of the three proposecl persons. In fact tlre surnmary tnovecl to the PM inclucles the names of all the 6 persons who the heacl hunter short listed.'I'he PM ir-r his cliscretion coulr-1 have appointed any one of the 6 names, 3 names or even rejected all the recommenclations. Petitioner Imran however was appointed out of the 3 by the PM, There is no evielence on recorcl that Abbasi (rtr any of the other petitioners) irrfluerrcecl the' PM's decisiorr ancl if NAB's allegation against Abbasi is to be bclievecl then the PM shoulcl also have been aclclecl to the reference which he was not. With regarcl to petitioner Imran's salary it is significant that he was already t:arning a package of RS43.5 lacs at Ilngro so ar.r uplift of arouncl I(ST lacs canrlot Lre rc,gardecl aS excessive especially as this is the market rate for MD's of Oil n"rarketing comparries which has uot been refutecl by the NAB and even otlrerwise tl-ris salary package was aPProvec-l by the comPetent authority (Federal Govemrlent/PM), Finance Mirristry and later ratifiecl by the Boarcl. Significantly considering the turn over/profit of PSO which was far higher than any other oil rnarketing company in Pakistan his salary although high was not excessive. lt is trlso important t0 givr. attractive salarv packages to MD's of Public Sector Iinterprises to ensure that the best people are appointed ancl that they rernain profitable in art increasingly cornpetitive market. Ihe so callecl loss in salary of arouncl RSZ lacs pcm in our view based on the facts and circutnstances of the case is rc.latively incousequc'rrtial keeping in view the fact that NAB's mandate is to investigate mega corruptiou cases involving billions of rupees' Even otherwise L it appears that PSO fiourished uncler the new MD (petitioner Imran) and did not rnake any losses and in fact in certain areas became more Profitable. The fact that Abbasi r]right have had an eye olr rnoving I5O irrto the LNC business has not been proven arrtl in our view is not particularly significant as petitioner Imran was fully qualifiecl to be MD PSO even if it c1ic1 trot move into the LNG business' It is irrteresting to note that by way of a cornparative analysis the petitioner was equally if not better qualifiecl than some forrner MD's of PSO and that if he hacl remainerl with Engro he woulcl have probably been earning more monev toL'lay.

lY" : 1' : :: : : :1':: : ii: : : :1 ::':: :::": ::: : "::'l:::::::i:"':'11:

lzc

mairr role attributec'l to petitioner Mirza is that he helped to select the three ?, names which went to the PM, by way of a summary which includecl all 6 narles/ for the PM to appoint one of thern as MD for PSO. It apPears that all the relevant summaries and all other codal forrnalities were compliecl with in this respect. We have already cliscussed earlier the reason why no interviews were held antl why this was justifiecl in the given circumstances. Thus basec.l on the above cliscussion we fincl that witl.r regarcl to the illegal appointment of petitioner Ir.nran ancl loss to the State this is a case clf further inquiry where NAII's theory orr the real r eason to appoint petitioner hnran i.e PSO's entry into the LNC business arrcl the plan to appoint hirn by illegally clissolving the BOM on a fake pre text will only be cletelrnined after e'r,iclence has been learl at trial (although this does not appear to be a part of the Charge which has been framed in the case) ancl as such the pre-arrest bail earlier granted to petitioners Abbasi ancl i Mirza is conf irmecl on the sanre tertns ancl cotttlitions'

15.With regarcl to petitioner Imran he hacl no role in placing the atlvertisement for tl.re Job of MD PSO. He simply appliecl for the position ancl was st,lectecl by the hearl hunters as one of the six nat-nes to go forwarcl because as per the aclvertisement ancl their assessment he had the required qualifications arrc'l experience ancl was cleernecl by the headhunters to be a prime candidate for -I'here the iob of MD PSo. is no suggestion that either he, Abbasi, Mirza or suttar ir-rfluencecl thc. heacl hunters irr his favour. llrot-tr a cursory review of his C.V it is apparer-it that he is a senior management figure having worked atEngro for 27 years finally reacl-ring the position of SEVP, He also aPPears to have rich experience in the oil ancl gas sector and senior mauagement. Having reviewecl his CV he was celtaillv not a cluffer ancl in our view qualifiecl for the job in hanc1.

As for his salaly as e{iscussecl above he was already earning a package of arounc'l I IlS43 lacs so an iucrease to RS50 lacs is harclly earth shattering keeping in view that this is the market rate fol sucli a position ancl accorcling to the aclvertisement the MD I5O was to be paicl tl.re r]rarket rate. It is also not unusual for employees when they leave one job for another fob to do so on the basis of a higher position ancl higher salary package. As cliscussed above an increase in salary package of arouncl RS7 lacs pcrn when he was alreatly being paid RS43 lacs aPPears to us to be relatively inconsecluential keeping in view NAB's rnandate to deal with corruptiorr cases involving billions of ItS. If, of course, his qualifications were that clf a pecltr anel lie was tltrll, beirrg paitl IIS one lac ;lcm in his previous job then tlre

- l---^.- -l:ir,.-.,-,-! L^'.'.-',.-- rl.i- ,.,^o ^^+ +ho naco L{ic rrrrc rrn} }hp

t21

only name which was short listed by petitioners Abbasi anrl Mirza for the job. tl 'fhree names went to the PM, including his, who was the appointing authority ancl there is uo eviclence k) suggest tliat eithr:r petitioner Abbasi or he or auy other person influeuced the PM's decision. lf this was the case then the PM should have been made a part of the reference which he was not. With regard to the conflict of interest issue we note that petitioner Imran clicl not assume charge of I'SO until l-re had firrishecl up at Engro ancl his salary at I'SO l-rarl been agreecl with l{iO."l'hus, prima facie, we c1o r-rot see any conflict of interest especially as it aPPears that neither Engro nor PSO lost out pursuant to any of his actions before he left Engro ancl joined PSO. If anything it appears that both companies benefitecl. Whilst petitioner Lnran was MD PSO it appears that PSO became mole profitable so we ale unsure how the issues of nepotism, undue benefit or Ioss arises out of an apparent rnisuse of authority. lhere is no evidence on record a to support NAII's case theory that petitioner Abbasi was rletertninecl to move irrto the LNG sector and that l.re had tappecl up petitioner Imran for this purpose. Sucl'r theory is basecl on assumptions, presumptions ancl suspicions wl'rich can nc.ver replace l-rarcl eviclence. Such aspects inclucling his appointment ancl salary aPpear to us to be a rnatter of further incluiry which will be thrashec{ out oniy aftel the recording of eviclence at tlial ancl thus petitioner Itnran's petition is corrverted into one for pre arrest bail ancl he is granted confirmed pre arrest bail subject to him furr-rishing solvelt surety of RS 5lacs and PR bond in the likc' atnouttt to the satisfaction of the Nazir of this court witl-rin 3 clays of this order.

16.With regarr'l to petitioner Suttal it appears that he was appointetl as in Charge MD I']SO shortly after the IIOM had be'en cllssolvecl. His appointmerlt was macle by the Fecleral Government and not petitioner Abbasi. Uncler 5.6(4) of tlre Marketing of Petroleurn Proclucts (Fecleral Control) Act 1,97 4 once the BOM I' was clissolvecl the MD PSO or in this casc. the look after charge/acting charge MD PSO hacl full power to assume the powers of MD PSO. As such he was in a positior-r to aPProve the appoirrtrnent of petitioner Imran as MD IISO anel approve his salary package wl.rich had been earlier aPProved by the Ferleral Govtrrrrnent after following all coclal fonnalities. Aftc'r petitioner ltnran was appointc'r1 as MD PSO a post of DMD (Finance) needecl to be fillecl.Petitioner Suttar appliecl for the post. His CV shows that l.re hacl rich experience in PSO especially in Finance as l-re hat'l treen the CIrO in PSO for'7 years and had even been sent to Asia Petroleum l-irnitecl (a subsicliary of I'SO) as its MD in 2013 ancl ^/\r - r , -t I I -( __ - ^-- \ rr_\ r)c,/ \ ^^ ,- rL^r L^ '.'-. 6r;'r-

tL8

facie certainly well qualified for the job which he appliec'l for. Uncler PSO internal -a Ilules fol appointrnents arrd protnotions at para 2.8 the appointrnent/ promotion to the position of a DMD coulcl be approvecl by the BOM. However in this irrstance the BOM hacl been rlissolvecl and its powers and functions as mentionecl ealliel hacl devolvecl to the MD PSO so it appears to us prima facie that petitioner Imran as the newly appointeci MD I,SO hacl full Power to appoirlt petitioner Suttar as DMD (Finapce) under 5.6 (a) of tl-re Marketing of Petroleum Proclucts (Fecleral Control) Act 1974, We have already four-rd that petitioner It-urau's salary was uot excessive. We also c{o not fincl the salary of petitioner Suttar being an inclease of only one lac which was c.leciclecl by the Fetleral Gctvernment ancl not Abbasi, Mirza or Imran to be excessive keeping in view the market rates for such a position ancl his qualifications anc'l experience ancl as such his appointment of Imran as MD PSO, his promotion and salary becotne a

I

cast' of further inquiry which we will neecl to be thrashed out at trial after the recorcling of evidence and as such petitioner Suttar's pre arrest bail is conlirrnetl on the same terms ancl conclitions.

17 l-he fact that the reference is largely t.rased on clocuments which are in the possession of NAB and cannot be interferecl with by the petitioners has also weighetl l-reavily in confirrning the pre arrest bail of the petitioners. Likewise the question of whether any loss at all has occurrecl to the State in appointiug petitioner Itttran as MD I5O, promoting Suttar as DMD and even f5o's entry into the LNG market which is purely a business,/policy decision of PSO (which clocs not appeal to.be part of the charge which appears to be a case concernillg itlegal appointments in PSO on high salaries) which loss, if any, may not be orr account of corruption but other factors Such as a weak international market etc NAB have also corrfirmecl that the petitioners co-oPerated throughout the intrestigatiorr anrl are no k>nger neeclecl for investigative purposes. We have also t'- heedecl the well settlec'l law that bail can never be used as a punishrnent and by placing the names of the petitiorlers on the ECL the threat of their absconsion has Lrc.t:n renroveel.

In conclusion

18.Petitioner Shahicl Khaclan Abbasi (Abbasi) former Minister of Petroleum, petitioner Arshacl Mirza (Mirza) (former Secretary Petroleum) aucl petitioner Yacoob Suttar (Suttar) (former DMD PSO) pre arrest bail are all confirmed on tl-re

tz\

MD ISO's petition is convertecl into one for pre arrest bail and he is granted a confirmee.l pre arrest bail subject to hirn furr-rishing solvent surety in the amount of 500,000 (Five Lac) ancl Ir.R. bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Nazir of this Court within 03 days of the clate of this oreler however the Ministry of interior is directed to imnrediately place the names of all the petitioners on the ECL. A copy of this orcler shall be sent by fax to the Secretary Ministry of Interior Government of Pakistan for compliance.

19.'Ihese are the reasons for our short orrler clated 03.09.2020 which is set out below for ease of reference;

"ln continuntion of order dnted 27.08.2020, Mr. Irslnd latoi, lenrned counsel nppenring in C.P, No.D-1048 of 2020 hns con ryle te d h i s nrgr trn e n ts,

Mr. Snrrtnd Hnni, lennrcd counsel nppenring in C,P. No.D-3813 of 2019 lns ttlso contpleted his nrgunrcnts.

Specinl Prosectttor, NAB nssistcd by LO.lms nnde his submissions in resytecl of nll llrc pelitions.

For tlrc rensons lo bc recorded hter, interint pre-nrrest bnil grnntetl anrlier to the petitioncrs Slnlid Klntlnn Abbnsi, Arslnd Mirzn nnd Yncoob Suttnr is lwrehy confirmed on tlrc snrne ternts nnd conditiotts.

Hotoetter, Petitioner Slrcikh Intrnn-ul-Hnque son o.f Slaiklr Nisnr-ulLlnqLte in C.P. No.D-1048 of 2020 is grnnted confinted pre-nrrest bnil subject to furnisling lris soloent surety in the sunt of Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees Fiue Lnc) nnd P.R. bond in the like nnrcunt to tlrc sntisfnction of tlrc Nnzir of tltis Court ruitlin 03 dnys.

'l'lrc nnttrcs o.[ atl tlr n.[on'snid petititttrs (Slurhid Klrnqnn Abbnsi, Arshntl Mirzn, \'trcoolt Srttlnr nnd Slvikh lntran-ulHnqtte) slnll bc plnced on tlrc ECl...

A copy of tlis order slmll be sent by t'nx irnnrcdiately to Secretary, Ministry of Interior, Cotrrnment of Pakistnn for contpliance. The petitiotrs nre disposed o.f in the nhot,e ternrs.

I Offce is directed to plnce n copy of this order in nll tlrc connected petitions.

20.The petitior-rs stancl clisposed of in tl.re above terms

IU

l tt,