Legal Principle & Question Decided

Ruling Summary: This decision was rendered by the Sindh High Court, officially reported as 2025 SHC 215. In this matter between Cr.Bail 215/2025 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad - Syed Bhooral Shah (Applicant) and the Respondent, the court adjudicated key questions of statutory construction, procedural regularity, and legal precedent under Pakistani law.

Core Holding: The honorable bench evaluated governing statutory provisions and judicial authorities to establish the rights of the parties, delivering the binding reasoning set out below.

Full Judgment Text & Judicial Ruling

COURT: Sindh High Court CASE NO: Cr.Bail 215/2025 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad CITATION: 2026 SHC HYD 1303 PARTIES: Syed Bhooral Shah (Applicant) ORDER DATE: 20-MAY-26 BENCH: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Jawad Akbar Sarwana, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Syed Fiaz Ul Hassan Shah(Author) A.F.R: Yes ------------------------------------------------------------ IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH, CIRCUIT COURT, HYDERABAD.

PRESENT Mr. Justice Jawad Akbar Sarwana. Mr. Justice Dr. Syed Fiaz ul Hasan Shah.

Criminal Bail Application No.D-208 of 2025 [Karar Raza Rizvi v. The State & others]

Criminal Bail Applications No.D-214 & 215 of 2025 [Syed Bhooral Shah v. The State]

Criminal Bail Application No.D-223 & 224 of 2025 [Niaz Hussain Gondal & others v. The State]

Criminal Bail Application No.D-227 & 234 of 2025 [Nazar Ali Jatoi v. The State]

Criminal Bail Application No.D-225 of 2025 [Muhammad Faheem Soomro v. The State]

Applicants: Karar Raza Rizvi [Criminal Bail Application No.D-208 of 2025 through, M/s Malik Naeem Iqbal and Muhammad Saleem, Advocates.

Syed Bhooral Shah [Criminal Bail Application No.D-214 & 215 of 2025] through Mian Taj Muhammad Keerio, Advocate.

Niaz Hussain Gondal, Waqar Hussain Soomro and Asif Ali Birahmani [Criminal Bail Application No.D-223 & 224 of 2025] through M/s. Tanveer Ahmed Daudani and Adeeb Hyder Buriro, Advocates.

Nazar Ali Jatoi [Criminal Bail Applications No.D- 227 & 234 of 2025] through M/s Shoukat Ali Kaka and Safdar Ali Abro, Advocates.

Muhammad Faheem Soomro [Criminal Bail Application No.D-225 of 2025] through Mr. Farooq H. Naek, Advocate.

Respondent: The State/NAB through Mr. Ghous Bux Kaheri, Special Prosecutor NAB

Date of hearing: 28.04.2026 & 29.04.2026 Date of Order: 20.05.2026.

2

O R D E R Syed Fiaz ul Hasan Shah, J: Through this common order we intend to dispose of the listed bail applications filed by the applicants seeking post- arrest bail applications in NAB Reference No.02 of 2023 as well as in NAB Reference No.3 of 2021 filed under section 18(g) readwith Section 24(b) of the National Accountability Ordinance, 1999 (NAO), and Sections 3 and 4 of the Anti-Money Laundering Act, 2010 (AMLA) and the learned Accountability Court-II, Hyderabad (trial Court) vide Orders dated 08.02.2025 (impugned Order) refused to grant the concession of the post arrest bail to the applicants pending trial of the said NAB reference. 2 Brief facts are that FIR No. G-0-01/2020 dated 03.03.2020 was registered at P.S. Thatta, Anti-Corruption Establishment (ACE), Sindh, against officers of Right Bank Outfall Drain (RBOD-II), Irrigation Department, Government of Sindh, and contractors, for misappropriation and embezzlement of funds under the guise of flood-fighting/emergent works. Upon an application under Section 16-A of the NAO, the learned Special Judge Anti-Corruption (Provincial), Hyderabad, transferred the matter vide order dated 15.01.2021 to the Accountability Court, Hyderabad. NAB's investigation culminated in two NAB References. 3. The cases pertain to alleged corruption within the "Extension of Right Bank Outfall Drain (RBOD-II) Project." The case originated from a complaint regarding the embezzlement of funds released to the Irrigation Department, Government of Sindh, between 2017 and 2019. It is alleged that approximately Rs. 9.5 Billion was placed at the disposal of the Project Director (Principal Accused), Munawar Ali Bozdar, for various construction and developmental works across multiple divisions of the RBOD project. 4. Genesis of the Inquiry revealed that the FIR stemmed from ACE Jamshoro Inquiry No. G-0-84/2019 (approved by competent authority) into alleged corruption in the "Extension of Right Bank Outfall Drain (RBOD) from Sehwan to Sea" project, spanning Dadu and Thatta districts. During FY 2017-2018 and 2019, RBOD-II Division-III (Thatta) officers, in collusion with contractors, raised fictitious bills/liabilities for non-existent flood emergency works, fraudulently

3

withdrawing Rs.3,527,374,695. Technical scrutiny confirmed zero execution at site; flood records (2014-2019) evinced no inundations in 2017-2019. Moreover, Superintending Engineer Imran Sheikh had sanctioned unauthorized work packages in 2014-2015 sans second revised PC-I approval (granted only on 29.11.2016), occasioning misuse of public funds. An interim challan was filed before the Special Judge Anti-Corruption (Provincial), Hyderabad; the case transferred to NAB under Section 16A(a) NAO. 5. NAB Investigation levelled Charges given in the supplementary reference (08.07.2023) indicts Project Director Munawar Ali Bozdar as principally culpable for disbursing Rs.3527374695/- and Rs.691612500/- billions via bogus flood emergency payments. The accused including Applicants face charges under Sections 9(a)(i), (iii), (iv), (vi), (xi), and (xii) of the NAO, 1999, and Section 3 of the AMLA, 2010 (punishable under Section 4 thereof). Particulars are detailed in NAB Reference No. 02/2021 and NAB Reference No.03/2021 as well as in the investigation reports, which need no reiteration. Applicant Karra Raza Rizvi Contention. 6. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that although the applicant was initially granted pre -arrest bail, the same was not confirmed upon hearing. Earlier, Criminal Bail Application No. 92 of 2025 before this Court which was also dismissed as withdrawn with permission to file afresh under the rule of consistency. Subsequently, the applicant moved a post-arrest bail application, which was declined by the trial Court through the impugned order. 7. Counsel argues that the applicant, serving as Divisional Accounts Officer in the Accountant General Sindh Office, had no role in verifying ground work or construction at the project site. The Accountant General ’s Office functions solely on the basis of bills presented by the Administrative Department and its officers. After verifying the signatures of the concerned officials and ensuring that the expenditure falls within the sanctioned budget, the applicant ’s department prepares cheques and returns them to the Administrative Department for disbursement to the concerned parties after proper verification.

4

8. The allegations in the NAB Reference revolve around the RBOD project, wherein it is alleged that no construction was carried out. However, the officers of the Irrigation Department prepared bills falsely showing measurements of completed work, withdrew millions of rupees through impersonated contractors, and obtained kickbacks, which were allegedly recovered by NAB. Counsel stresses that the applicant ’s role was limited to financial processing based on authenticated signatures and sanctioned budgetary allocations, without any obligation to physically inspect or verify the execution of works at site. 9. It is further contended that the applicant ’s duties, as outlined in clauses 19 and 20 onwards of the relevant Rules, do not encompass the responsibilities alleged by NAB. Hence, the applicant ’s involvement is not substantiated, and his case falls within the ambit of further inquiry. He also pointed out that the NAB prosecution has implicated the applicant solely on the basis of the statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. of one Iqbal Ahmed Shaikh, District Accounts Officer, Thatta, who misleadingly suggested that under Rule 88 of the Sindh Financial Rules, the applicant signed the disputed bill alongside Waqar Ahmed Qadri (Superintending Engineer, RBOD-II), Muhammad Fahim Soomro (Executive Engineer), Abdul Malik Bullo (Assistant Executive Engineer/SDO), and others. Counsel maintains that this assertion is misconceived, as the applicant ’s signature was part of routine financial processing and not evidence of complicity in the alleged offence. Applicant Bhooral Shah Contention. 10. The bail application[s] of the applicant, Bhooral Shah, was earlier rejected by this Court in Criminal Bail Application No. 59 of 2025 on 15.05.2025 on merits. The applicant did not thereafter approach the Hon’ble Supreme Court of Pakistan. Subsequently, he filed a second bail application before the trial Court which was dismissed through the order impugned before us. 11. Learned counsel for the applicant, Mr. Mian Taj Muhammad Keerio, advocate submits that the applicant has been incarcerated for more than a year without any meaningful progress in the trial. He argues that the allegations against the applicant are identical to those against other co - accused, namely, payment of kickbacks to Munawar Bozdar, Project

5

Director RBOD -II, and his team, through developing links with lower- grade staff such as Niaz Hussain Gondal, Waqar Hussain, and Asif Ali Brehmani, as well as private contractors including the applicant and Manzoor Solangi and Manzoor Samejo, 12. Counsel emphasizes that co-accused Manzoor Solangi has already been granted post-arrest bail. Similarly, the principal beneficiary, Munawar Ali Bozdar, has also been enlarged on bail by the trial Court, albeit on medical grounds. On merits, the case of the applicant is at par with that of Manzoor Solangi, and under the rule of consistency, the applicant is entitled to the same relief. Counsel further argues that when the principal accused has been granted bail, even on medical grounds, the applicant cannot be treated differently. Applicant Muhammad Faheem Soomro Contention. 13. Mr. Farooq H. Naik, Sr. ASC, learned counsel for the applicant, submits that the allegations against the applicant are identical to those leveled against co-accused Abdul Malik Bullo. According to the prosecution, Abdul Malik Bullo allegedly prepared bogus bills, while the present applicant merely countersigned the same payment bills in favor of private contractors, despite no work having been executed as alleged. Counsel points out that the bail application of Abdul Malik Bullo was rejected by this Court o n 15.05.2025; however, the said order was assailed before the Hon ’ble Supreme Court of Pakistan, which granted him the concession of post-arrest bail. Therefore, under the rule of consistency, the same relief must be extended to the present applicant, whose role is comparatively lesser, as he did not originate the alleged bills but only countersigned them in routine course. 14. Learned counsel further advances a second ground of bail based on statutory delay. He submits that the applicant has remained behind bars for more than one year without any fault on his part, thereby crossing the statutory time limit prescribed under Section 497 Cr.P.C. and therefore, he is entitled to bail on this ground as well a third ground, counsel r elies upon the applicant ’s deteriorating health condition. He submits that during incarceration, the applicant has undergone cardiac surgery and presently suffers from psychiatric complications. Continued confinement, it is argued, would further aggravate his medical condition.

6

In support of this plea, counsel refers to the medical board ’s report available on the Court file. 15. Mr. Naik, therefore, urges that the applicant is entitled to post-arrest bail on three independent grounds: (i) rule of consistency, (ii) statutory delay, and (iii) medical condition. In support of his submissions, he has relied upon judgments reported as 2022 YLR Note-16, 2006 SCMR 1225, PLD 1995 S.C. 58, 1998 SCMR 1065, 2018 YLR 176, PLD 2022 S.C. 497, 2025 YLR 622, 2018 P.Cr.L.J. 1607, 2001 SCMR 1040, 2022 YLR 2046, 216 SCMR 18, PLD 2003 S.C. 668, PLD 2021 S.C. 916, 2013 SCMR 669, 2008 SCMR 1316, 2023 MLD 400, 2017 P.Cr.L.J. 416, 2023 SCMR 1357, PLD 2022 S.C. 475, 2015 P.Cr.L.J 1496, 2002 SCMR 1478, 2019 P.Cr.L.J 370, 2019 SCMR 1914, 2021 SCMR 63, 2000 SCMR 107, 2022 P.Cr.L.J. 883, 2002 SCMR 282, 2020 MLD 1877, 2013 P.Cr.L.J 1162, PLD 2017 S.C. 147, 2006 P.Cr.L.J 612, 2017 MLD 859, 2019 YLR 2357, 1983 SCMR 341, PLD 1997 Karachi 172, 1998 SCMR 190 and an unreported judgment dated 11.12.2019, passed in W.P. No.4186 of 2019 by Islamabad High Court Islamabad.

Applicants Niaz Hussain Godnal, Waqar Hussain Soomro, Asif Ali Brehmani and Nazar Ali Jatoi. 16. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that Niaz was employed as a Chowkidar, Waqar as an Outdoor Carrier in the FERD project with Munawar Bozdar, while Asif was working as a Peon in RBOD. Their appointment letters, issued by the principal accused Munawar Bozdar, are available at pages 349 and 351 of the record. 17. The allegations against these three lower-grade staff members are that, at the instigation of Munawar Bozdar, Manzoor Ahmed Samejo and Inayat Channa, they withdrew cash (kickbacks) from contractors ’ accounts and delivered the same to Munawar Bozdar. Counsel emphasizes that the applicants had no authority to sanction or process payments, nor did they derive any personal gain from the alleged transactions. Their role was purely subordinate and carried out under instructions of the principal accused. 18. It is further argued that on identical allegations, one co-accused, Nauman, has already been granted pardon, and the present applicants are also

7

willing to seek pardon and become prosecution witnesses. Despite this, the Investigating Officer has implicated them as accused persons, which is misconceived. Counsel submits that in such circumstances, the benefit of Section 4 (d) of the National Accountability Ordinance (NAO) is available to them. 19. Additionally, counsel point ed out that another co-accused, Shahid, having an identical role, has already been granted bail, as reflected in orders available at pages 335 and 339 of the record. Therefore, under the rule of consistency, the present applicants are entitled to the same relief. NAB’s contention 20. On the other hand, the learned Special Prosecutor NAB strongly opposed the grant of bail to applicants Asif Ali Brehmani, Waqar Hussain, Niaz Hussain Gondal, Nazar Ali Jatoi and Syed Bhooral Shah. He submits that while co-accused Shahid was merely a private driver, these three applicants were official employees who played an active role in the transportation of kickbacks. He further contends that applicants Asif Ali Brehmani, Waqar Hussain, and Niaz Hussain Gondal collected kickbacks from applicant Bhooral Shah and delivered them to the principal accused, Munawar Bozdar. In view of the incremental material available against them, both sets of accused are not entitled to the concession of bail. 21. The learned Prosecutor also opposed the bail application of applicant Karar Raza Rizvi, arguing that serious allegations exist against him. He allegedly signed bogus bills in violation of Rule 88 of the Financial Rules Manual, treating them as 100% pre-audit bills, while failing to inspect the construction site to ensure that work had been executed. By intentionally neglecting this requirement, the applicant facilitated impersonated contractors in misappropriating public funds. 22. With respect to applicant Bhooral Shah, the Prosecutor emphasized that he was not an enlisted contractor and, following his arrest, filed an application for plea bargaining, thereby admitting his guilt. The prosecution has sufficient material to establish that Bhooral Shah paid kickbacks to Munawar Bozdar and purchased properties from the crime proceeds, which have since been frozen. His earlier bail application was

8

dismissed by this Court on account of prima facie evidence against him, and therefore he is not entitled to bail. 23. The learned Prosecutor further opposed the bail application of applicant Muhammad Faheem Soomro, Executive Engineer of the project, who countersigned bogus bills originated by SDO Abdul Malik Bullo. Although Abdul Malik Bullo’s bail application was rejected by this Court and later allowed by the Hon ’ble Supreme Court of Pakistan, the Prosecutor argued that the present applicant ’s case is distinguishable. Unlike Abdul Malik Bullo, the NAB prosecution has seized various properties allegedly acquired by Muhammad Faheem Soomro from crime proceeds, representing huge sums of public money misappropriated under the guise of fake development work. Thus, sufficient material exists to connect him with the offence. 24. Finally, the Prosecutor reiterated opposition to bail for the three lower-grade applicants —Asif Ali Brehmani, Waqar Hussain, and Niaz Hussain Gondal —stating that they, along with Shahid (driver of Munawar Bozdar), withdrew billions of rupees from accounts of impersonated contractors and handed over the kickbacks to Munawar Ali Bozdar. Despite no work being carried out on the RBOD-II Project, billions were dishonestly encashed from the government treasury. In written submissions, the Prosecutor highlighted t hat applicant Asif Ali Brehmani alone withdrew Rs. 354,242,000/- against 122 cheques drawn from the accounts of Ali Mughal, Syed Bhooral Shah, and Manzoor Ahmed Samejo (private contractors). The details are as under: Sr. Bank A/c No. a. Name of Accused Cheques Amount (Rs.) 1. United Bank 246536398 Hasnain Ali Mughal 35 121,800,000 2. United Bank 248337962 Syed Bhooral Shah 38 117,700,000 3. United Bank 247328781 Manzoor Ahmed Samejo 33 90,442,000 4. United Bank 226578534 Manzoor Ahmed Samejo 10 18,750,000 5. United Bank 243668869 Manzoor Ahmed Samejo 6 5,550,000 25. Applicant Waqar Hussain had withdrawn amount Rs. 45,250,000 by encashment of 24 cheques from the account of Hasnain Ali Mughal, Syed Bhooral Shah and Manzoor Ahmed Samejo (Private Contractors). The details are as follow:

9

Sr Bank A/c No. Name of Accused Cheques Amount (Rs.) 1. United Bank a. 246536398 Hasnain Ali Mughal 3 18,000,000 2. b. United Bank c. 248337962 Shah Bhooral Shah 19 25,250,000 3. d. United Bank e. 247328781 Manzoor Ahmed Samejo 1 1,000,000 4. f. United Bank g. 226578534 Manzoor Ahmed Samejo 1 1,000,000 26. Applicant Niaz Hussain Gondal had withdrawn amount Rs. 265,578,000 through 98 cheques from accused persons Hasnain Ali Mughal, Syed Bhooral Shah and Manzoor Ahmed Samejo. The details are as follow: Sr Bank A/c No. Name of Accused Cheque Amount Rs 1. a. United Bank b. 246536398 c. Hasnain Ali Mughal d. 42 114,050,000 2. e. United Bank f. 248337962 g. Syed Bhooral Shah h. 29 88,950,000 3. i. Soneri Bank 102246505022 j. Syed Bhooral Shah k. 02 10,000,000 4. l. United Bank 247328781 m. Manzoor Ahmed Samejo 24 51,158,000 5. n. United Bank 226578534 o. Manzoor Ahmed Samejo 1 1,420,000 27. Therefore, in view of the established nexus applicants Asif Ali Behrani, Waqar Hussain and Niaz Hussain Gondal as well as Syed Bhooral Shah are not entitled for the concession of post arrest bail as the offence fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497(i) Cr.P.C. He relied upon the cases of 2023 MLD 952, 2002 SCMR 1886, 1995 SCMR 1765. He further relied on 2009 P.Cr.L.J 19 and 2023 YLR 485 wherein it was held that an accused cannot claim bail in non-bailable offences as a matter of right. He urged that such principles is settled law and relied on the cases reported in 2024 SCMR 1576, 2024 SCMR 1419, 2024 SCMR 1071, 2023 SCMR 2056, 2023 SCMR 1182 and 2023 SCMR 1068. 28. We have heard learned counsel for the Applicants in the listed bail applications, alongside the learned Special Prosecutor for NAB. The record, voluminous as it is, has been perused alongside arguments, relevant statutory provisions, judicial precedents, legal submissions, and the investigation report. 29. In principles, bail application of the Applicant Karrar Raza Rizvi was dismissed by this Court with permission to move afresh before the trial Court, therefore, his bail application can be heard on merits. While bail

10

applications of applicants Asif Ali Brehmani, Waqar Hussain, Niaz Hussain Gondal and Bhooral Shah were already rejected on merits which order has attained finality therefore they cannot be heard on merit. However, Counsels urged that bails sought on fresh ground on the Rule of consistency. 30. Similarly, the bail application of the Applicant Muhammad Faheem Soomro was also rejected on merits. However, he also urged bail sought on fresh ground on rule of consistency that Abdul Malik Bullo with same role granted bail by Hon ’ble Supreme Court of Pakistan while with same role another accused Waqar Qadri has also granted bail by Trial Court. 31. A careful examination of the NAB reference reveals that there are three categories of Accused:

a. Contractors who are alleged beneficiary of crime proceeds b. Senior Officers of RBOD-II project prepared bogus Bill, forged record and even hide or destroyed record related to payments and measurement Book (Quantification of Project flow of work) as prosecution main case is there was no work done at site. And c. the low-grade officials (Peon, Driver, Outdoor boy) who en- cashed cheques from the accounts of contractors (kickbacks) and handed over cash to the 1 st category of accused party (i.e. only to Munawar Bozdar as per probed by the investigation). 32. In the earlier round of bail applications, this Court (one of us J.Syed Fiaz ul Hasan Shah as author Judge) passed the consolidated Order with following principles for our tentative assessment:

a. Analysis of Reference No. 03/2021 (RBOD -II Project): The thrust of NAB ’s reference is that the "Emergency/Flood Damage" head was a self- created tool for embezzlement. However, the record tells a different story. We have noted the ECNEC Letter dated 09.08.2017 and the Second Revised PC- I. It is a matter of record that ECNEC the highest competent authority sanctioned the revised cost of Rs. 16.985 billion, which specifically catered to "Emergency Works." Furthermore, NAB's own Investigation Report (at Paragraphs 17e and 17f) admits this approval. When the highest economic forum of the country

11

approves a specific head of expenditure, and the SPRA Rules allow for emergency procurement during natural calamities, the allegation of "rule violation with dishonest intent" is significantly neutralized for the purpose of a tentative assessment. The dispute over whether the "work was actually done" or "partially done" is a factual controversy that can only be resolved during the trial after recording evidence.

b. While defining the newly added provision of Section 4(d) inserted through NAO Amendment Act, 2022. Section 4(d) NAO grants immunity to public office holders for acts performed in good faith while discharging official duties, provided no personal monetary benefit accrues to them (directly or indirectly) and no financial loss is caused to the public exchequer. This protection shields mere procedural irregularities absent dishonest intent, personal gains, or public financial detriment. However, where prosecution evidence establishes mens rea —coupled with undue financial gains or illegal gains to the office holder or losses to the exchequer—the conduct falls within ambit of Section 9, vesting NAB with jurisdiction and paused immunity as provided under Section 4(d) and in the absence of demonstrable material or proven record for personal monetary benefits to the applicants (accused) or his dependent, immunity under Section 4(d) applies, ousting NAB jurisdiction. 33. On these principles, bail was either granted or declined by this Court to all relevant officers and officials of the RBOD-II Project who were found to have a connection with illegal financial gains or monetary benefits for themselves or their dependents, without extending the benefit of Section 4(d) of the NAO. Conversely, bail was granted to private contractors who were genuinely enlisted and against whom no material was available with the prosecution to establish that they had paid kickbacks to officials. However, those contractors against whom NAB prosecution seized evidence of paying kickbacks were denied bail by this Court, in line with the aforesaid principles. 34. The Respondent NAB preferred an appeal before the Hon ’ble Supreme Court of Pakistan, which was dismissed, thereby maintaining the Order

12

dated 18.06.2025 passed by this Court in Criminal Bail Application No. D-54 & other connected bails. 35. Adverting to the cases of present applicants. 36. Karrar Raza Rizvi: Admittedly, the bogus bill was prepared by the SDO/Assistant Executive Engineer Abdul Malik Bulloo and countersigned by the Executive Engineer of the project, Faheem Hussain Soomro and approved by the Suptt. Engineer Waqar Qadri. Thereafter, the Treasury Office forwarded the same to the Accountant General Sindh for preparation and issuance of cheque under the relevant head of account. 37. As regards the allegation in…

Read the unabridged text and precedent citation network on Al Wakeelo Legal Research Platform.

Related Legal Research & Directories

• Browse all judgments from Sindh High Court
• Search Pakistani statutes: Constitution of Pakistan 1973, PPC, CrPC, CPC & Family Laws
• Analyze this case with Al Wakeelo AI Legal Assistant