HYDERABAD: A division bench of Sindh High Court, Hyderabad circuit, has granted bail to a co-accused named in a Rs4.48bn reference filed by the National Accountability Bureau (NAB) against several irrigation officials.

The bench comprising Justice Amjad Ali Sahito and Justice Miran Mohammad Shah grante d bail to Faheem Dayo, a BS-11 senior clerk, in a sum of Rs100,000, on Thursday, and questioned his continued detention.

Dayo was represented by Advocate Zamir Ghumro. He was booked vide an FIR (No.

1/20) registered by the AntiCorruption Establishment (ACE), Jamshoro, following a departmental inquiry.

The inquiry had found that Imran Shaikh, the superintending engineer of the Right Bank Outfall Drain, during his 201415 tenure, had awarded work packages without awaiting administrative approval of second revised PC-I, which was received only on Nov 29, 2016.

An interim challan was submitted by the ACE before Hyderabad`s special anti-corrup-tion judge (provincial).

Subsequently, the case was transferredtotheAccountability Court. Further investigation was conducted after court`s permission and supplementary reference was filed on July 8, 2023 which revealed that RBOD project director Munawar Ali Bozdar was primarily responsible for the expenditure and payments from the exchequer.

He authorised disbursement of Rs3,527,374,695 towards illegal and bogus payments under the guise of emergency floodfighting works.

The bench noted that as per the reference, a technical inspection was conducted by the ACE Karachi and its report confirmed that no work was executed at the site.

The director regulation of the irrigation department also stated that no floods were reported in 2017-2019 period.

Allegations against applicant Applicant Faheem Dayo was accused of having misplaced the record, including measurement book, of the illegal payment in collusion with co-accused. His counsel stated that his client was a senior clerk responsible for attendance of staff alone. He submitted in court that his clienthad no concern with awarding contracts, preparing tender notices or bills, or issuing of cheques to contractors and others.

He said that there was no material or any kind of evidence to establish the case of corruption and corrupt practices against the applicant. He argued that cases of proceduralirregularity or any infirmity of procedure without any allegation of monetary gain did not warrant jurisdiction of NAB. As such, in the absence of such allegation, the Sections under which the applicant was booked were not attracted.

He said applicant never remained custodian of record and, therefore, the question of abetting and aiding misplacement of record / property did not arise.

Prosecution`s stance NAB`s special prosecutor Moazam Ali Shaikh opposed the bail application by claiming that the suspect was involved in the alleged corruption. He contended that though the applicant was posted at the establishment side, he was assigned work in RBOD-II Thatta division.

Dayo was supposed to maintain relevant record but he misplacedthe same which included measurement books pertaining to the payments amounting to Rs3,527,374,695, he added.

Suspect`s continued detention questioned The bench noted that the crucial aspect which could not be overlooked was that the work for which measurement was to be recorded had never been executed, as per NAB`s claim, whereas the alleged disappearance of books did not, on the face of it, constitute sufficient justification to continue detention of the applicant; his pre-trial detention could not be used as a means of punishment, particularly when there was no reasonable apprehension that the accused would tamper with prosecution`s evidence.

The court said the applicant was neither alleged to have personally benefited from the alleged offence nor had it been demonstrated that his continued detention was necessary for collection of further evidence.

The bench said the prosecution had not placed on record any material to establish that the applicant would tamper with evidence if released on bail. The court allowed his bail in a sum of Rs100,000.