KARACHI, July 4: Former Deputy Commissioner (East), Syed Ali Anwar Shah, charged with abetting the offence of corruption and corrupt practices under Section 9 (VI) of the NAB ordinance, was granted bail by a division bench of the Sindh High Court against a surety of Rs200,000.

The bench comprised Justice Sabihuddin Ahmed and Justice Zia Pervez. The petitioner was represented by Khawaja Naveed Ahmed, advocate, whereas Dilawar Hussain appeared for NAB.

The substance of the allegation against the petitioner was that one Khubchand (beneficiary) had made an application to the then chief minister, Syed Abdullah Shah, seeking transfer of government land in his favour. The request was granted and a report was called from the petitioner.

The petitioner, in his report, stated that the area was in Block 5 of KDA Scheme 36, where roads and some unauthorized huts had been constructed. It was reported that in 1990, the provincial government had transferred 2,000 acres to KDA for Scheme 36, which included the area on which the disputed allotment was made, and that the government, after resuming possession of the land, had allotted it to various individuals.

Khawaja Naveed Ahmed, counsel for the petitioner, argued that his client had made a correct and honest disclosure and could not, by any stretch of imagination, be assumed to have colluded with the beneficiary or the then chief minister.

The counsel submitted that the petitioner is an old and sick person, retired from service. He has not gained anything out of this case. The case is of further investigation and pending an inquiry, and that the applicant may be admitted to bail, submitted the counsel.

Dilawar Hussain, representing NAB, however, disputed the contentions of Khwaja Naveed and argued that the petitioner had abetted with the above-mentioned two persons. But the court noted that the NAB counsel did not dispute that part of the statement which was factually incorrect. However, he argued that merely mentioning the fact that the KDA land had been allotted to individuals in the past was not sufficient. In fact, the petitioner was under duty to inform the higher authorities that such past practices were wrong.

The court did not indulge in the exercise of determining the consequences of any dereliction of duty on part of the petitioner and the consequences following therefrom.

The court was prima facie of the view that even if failure to perform duties with the required amount of efficiency was established, it might not necessarily amount to abetment of an offence in the absence of any other material.

Without making any further comments, the bench admitted the petitioner to bail against a surety of Rs200,000.