LAHORE - A division bench of the Lahore High Court comprising Justice Tariq Shamim and Justice MA Zafar on Wednesday granted bail to Ehsan Ranjha and Shabbir Ullah Cheema - co-accused of Sibtul Hassan alias Double Shah who is accused of committing fraud with public at large on the pretext of making investments double. According to prosecution, both the accused had deprived different people of Rs 4.4 billion. They were arrested by NAB Punjab from Lahore on July 14, 2008. Accused counsel Aftab Bajwa submitted that they were falsely involved in the case. He said in the interim reference the NAB had alleged that the two petitioners were co-accused of Double Shah and were working as his agents but in complete reference the NAB alleged that both had their 29 different agents who collected the money from different people in the name of investment and they gave it to Double Shah. He said there was no documentary evidence that any amount was given to the petitioners and whole material against both the petitioners are based on hearsay evidence relying on which they could not be convicted. He said the NAB took 16 months to complete the investigation according to which there are 4,300 witnesses in this case and the file contained 80,000 pages the copies of which had so far not been provided to the accused. He said in these circumstances the petitioners could not be kept behind the bars any longer and they should be enlarged on bail. The bench accepted the petition and ordered to enlarge the petitioners on bail. Petitions of 25 patwaris disposed of Justice Hafiz Tariq Nasim of the Lahore High Court on Wednesday disposed of petitions of 25 sacked patwaris from Gujarat after they withdrew their petitions. Petitioners Zahid Hussain and others appearing before the court said that the department had started proceedings against them under PEEDA Act 2006 so they wanted to contest their case by filing departmental appeals. At this the court directed the EDO (Revenue) Gujarat to deal the appeals of the petitioners strictly according to law and afford them the opportunity of personal hearing before final decision on the appeals. Earlier the court had suspended the order of EDO (Revenue) and restored the petitioners. The petitioners submitted that the EDO (Revenue) Gujarat had terminated them without issuing any show cause notice or initiating any legal proceedings. The petitioners pointed out that they were sacked on the allegation that their domiciles were not of district Gujarat, however, on Wednesday they produced their domiciles of Gujarat in the court. The judge observed that the respondent did not fullfil legal requirements while terminating the services of petitioners so his action was liable to be set aside. The due legal procedure prescribed in the PEEDA Act was not adopted. Even no show cause notice was issued to the petitioners, the judge remarked.