The Supreme Court has declared that judicial power to pre-arrest bail to be cautiously exercised with a view to protecting the innocent and is not extended in every run-of-the-mill criminal case.

"Grant of pre-arrest bail is an extraordinary remedy, essentially rooted into equity, a judicial power to be cautiously exercised with a view to protecting the innocent from the horrors of abuse of process of law, in prosecutions initiated by considerations and for purposes stained with the taints of mala fide; this judicial protection is not to be extended in every run-of-the-mill criminal case, with pleas structured on bald denials and parallel stories," said the judgment authored by Justice Muhammad Amin Ahmed.

The apex court upholding the Sindh High Court (SHC) decision dismissed the petitions of Mir Muhammad, Tariq Hussain, Sher Muhammad, Ayaz Ahmed Soomro, Ali Gul Phull, Ghulam Nabi, Ghulam Sarwar and others. They approached the Supreme Court in anticipation to their arrest by NAB in a corruption case as the SHC had declined their bail pleas.

It was alleged misappropriation of funds by the petitioners in execution of Annual Development Plan of Irrigation (E&W) Khairpur in 2013-14 & 2014-15. Except for some partial work, no work was executed at all and caused Rs 89,303,470 loss to the exchequer.

Sher Muhammad, Ayyaz Ahmed Somro, Ali Gul Phull and Ghulam Nabi are officials of the Irrigation Department whereas Mir Muhammad, Ghulam Sarwar and Tariq Hussain, being contractors, have been arrayed for their 'connivance' in the scam.

It was the stance of the petitioners that they had completed the projects as per codal requirements; 'which was evident from the survey/inspection report'.

The complaint against the petitioners was alleged violation of rules as well as embezzlement in the project; therefore, the SHC had directed a probe. The physical verification by the experts found non-execution of various planks of the project as well as partial completion of the work, found much less than the required standards.

The SHC refusing bail to the petitioners directed the Accountability Court to conclude the trial within three months requiring the accused to cooperate in the conclusion thereof, an option to conveniently vindicate their position sooner rather than later.