IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PAKISTAN 
 
(APPELLATE JURISDICTION) 
 
 
 
 
 
 
PRESENT 
 
 
 
 
MR. JUSTICE MIAN SAQIB NISAR 
 
 
 
 
MR. JUSTICE FAISAL ARAB 
 
 
 
 
MR. JUSTICE TARIQ PARVEZ 
 
 
CIVIL PETITION NO. 3451 OF 2015 
(On appeal from the judgment and 
order of the Lahore High Court, 
Lahore, dated 22.09.2015 passed in 
W. P. No. 23025 of 2015) 
 
 
Chairman NAB through PGA NAB Islamabad  
Petitioner 
 
 
 
 
 
Versus 
 
Muhammad Khalid 
 
 
 
 
 
Respondent 
 
For the Petitioner: 
Mr. Nasir Mehmood Mughal, 
Special Prosecutor, NAB with 
 
 
 
 
Mr. Tariq Aziz, AOR 
 
Respondent: 
 
N. R. 
 
Date of Hearing:  
11.01.2016 
 
 
 
 
 
JUDGMENT 
 
 
 
TARIQ PARVEZ, J.- The petitioner, Chairman 
NAB seeks indulgence of this Court for setting aside order of 
the learned Division Bench of the Lahore High, Lahore dated 
22.09.2015 passed in Writ Petition No. 23025 of 2015 
whereby respondent Muhammad Khalid  was allowed bail on 
furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs.200,000/- with two 
sureties in the like amount.  
2. 
 
The reason as to why Muhammad Khalid approached the 
Hon’ble Lahore High Court was that a Reference by the NAB Authorities 
was filed against number of accused including the petitioner with the 
C. P. No. 3451 of 2015 
2 
allegations that a piece of land measuring 1787 kanals 14 marlas situated in 
Village Dhana Singhwala, Lahore, located along Canal Bank near Joher 
Town belongs to the Government of Pakistan and that one Abdul Rasheed 
Farooqi who had General Power of Attorney on behalf of the land owners 
entered into a compromise to sell such land to the National Industrial 
Cooperative Finance Corporation Limited (hereinafter referred to as 
“NICFC”) for a total consideration of Rs.64.14 million and the total price 
was paid to Zulifqar Hussain and others. Later a controversy and dispute 
regarding the share in profit on the sale of the said land developed and 
finally when the matter came up for adjudication before this Court and the 
deeds executed in favour of NICFC were cancelled holding that Zulifqar 
Hussain and others were not owners of the said land. However in Reference 
it is alleged that after cancellation of the sale deed by the Supreme Court all 
the accused in furtherance of their common intention had misappropriated 
an amount of Rs.77.71  million out of funds of NICFC. It is alleged that the 
price of the land should have been paid back and deposited in the fund of 
NICFC, one Shahid Mehmood who is son of Ch. Abdul Majeed requested 
NICFC that he being co sharer to the extent of 25% of land mentioned 
above, was not interested in the land and be paid a cash of Rs.12.09 million. 
The request was accepted by Ch. Tajammal Hussain and Ch. Abdul Majeed 
who paid the said amount to Shahid Mehmood but Shahid Mehmood 
deposited the amount in the Loan Account No.113 which was in the name 
of Muhammad Khalid (a cousin of Shahid Mehmood) and that it was 
adjusted to clear the loan liabilities which were outstanding against 
Muhammad Khalid as such he is one of the beneficiary of the frud and 
misappropriation being committed by him and his co accused against whom 
Reference was filed.  
C. P. No. 3451 of 2015 
3 
3. 
 
Some co accused of the respondent were sent up for trial 
before the learned Judge of the Accountability Court but on trial and vide 
judgment dated 16.03.2005 some of the accused were convicted and 
sentenced to different periods while some were already released on entering 
into plea bargain. Some of the convicts preferred appeal before the Lahore 
High Court and vide judgment dated 28.04.2015 were acquitted.  
4. 
 
The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that 
respondent Muhammad Khalid being a close relative of Shahid Mehmood 
co accused had opened a loan account bearing No.113 which he has not 
disowned and an amount of Rs.12.09 which was deposited in the said loan 
account was adjusted towards loan taken by him from the financial 
companies, thus, he has become a beneficiary of the misappropriation 
money. He next submits that the respondent has been allowed bail mainly 
on the ground that since some of his co accused namely, Ch. Abdul Majeed 
and Shahid Mehmood had been acquitted he was extended the benefit of 
doubt by granting bail. His last submission that the respondent remained 
absconder for approximately 14 years which fact was though taken into 
consideration by the learned High Court but not considered as incriminating 
circumstance which would have made the respondent disentitled to the 
concession of bail. 
5. 
 
We are cognizant of the fact that before us is a matter where 
the petitioner seeks leave of this Court but against an order granting bail to 
the respondent. 
6. 
 
It has been ruled by this Court with a considered view that 
considerations for grant of bail and its cancellation are different. Once a 
Court of competent jurisdiction by exercising its powers which are 
discretionary in nature has issued a favourable order in respect of a person 
C. P. No. 3451 of 2015 
4 
accused in an offence, this Court is always slow to interfere unless it finds 
that the order granting bail was against the record, perverse or 
unreasonable.  
7. 
 
In the present case not only that alleged main beneficiary 
have been acquitted by the learned Division Bench of the High Court vide 
judgment dated 28.04.2015 but the allegation against the present 
respondent that the amount was transferred in his account by Shahid 
Mehmood his cousin since has been acquitted the role of the respondent 
whether he is or was a beneficiary of the misappropriation requires 
recording of independent evidence. The mere fact that co-accused of the 
respondent have been acquitted may not be sufficient ground for granting 
him bail but it has created dent at present to the extent which has made the 
case of the respondent of further inquiry. The main and final argument of 
the learned counsel for the petitioner that the respondent remained 
absconder for about 14 years, suffice it to say that abscondance by itself 
cannot be a substitute of evidence. It is a circumstance which is always 
taken in a criminal case as corroboration towards the guilt and not as proof 
of the guilt. 
8. 
 
Moreover, an accused under the NAB Ordinance if avoid 
being served with any process issued under the Ordinance or in any manner 
prevents, avoid or evades the service on himself of such process or conceals 
himself to screen himself from the proceedings creates an independent 
crime under Section 31-A of the National Accountability Ordinance, 1999. 
9. 
 
We have searched for proceedings if any initiated against the 
accused/respondent in terms of Section 31-A which we failed to find out at 
the available record.  
C. P. No. 3451 of 2015 
5 
10. 
 
Be as it may the nutshell is that the bail has already been 
granted to the respondent by the High Court in exercise of constitutional 
jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of 
Pakistan, 1973 with careful exercise of discretion and this Court being slow 
in interfering in discretionary orders more so when they are interim in 
nature and not final and when the matter before us has come for 
cancellation of bail this Court is always very slow to recall the order of 
grant of bail. We find no good and strong reason in support of this petition 
and the same is dismissed. Leave declined.  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Judge  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Judge 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Judge 
Islamabad 
January 11, 2016 
Shirazi/* 
 
 
 
 
“NOT APPROVED FOR REPORTING”