Investigation in the case of the petitioner and his co-accused had been taken up by the National Accountability Bureau upon an initiation of the High Court when the operations against the petitioner and his co-accused had been highlighted before the High court in another case and the said allegations against the petitioner and his co-accused had been highlighted before the High Court in another case and the said allegations pertained to misappropriation of a huge amount of money deposited with the company by numerous innocent citizens for purchase of tractors and at least 740 of such persons had so far failed to receive any tractor and most of the amount deposited by such persons remained unaccounted for-petitioner, though was neither a Director no a shareholder of the company but at the same time he was no only a son of the principal director of the said company but he was also the Business Development Manage and an authorized signatory for the purpose of issuing cheques on behalf of the said company-petitioner, alongwith his co-authorized signatory of the company, had all along been issuing cheques on behalf of the said company, and had, thus, been handling the said company’s cash-Investigation Officer had collected material, to show that the petitioner was practically incharge of the financial matters of the company and all the financial transactions used to take place after his approval and almost all the cheques drawn from different Banks during the relevant period bore petitioner’s signatures-Prosecution, through various documents, showed as to how huge finances of the company had been siphoned off to other companies of which the petitioner was the Chief Executive-Held, in view of availability of such material and keeping in view such de facto control of the petitioner over the finances of the company prima facie, the petitioner could well be termed as a “person” for the purposes of the provisions of S. 5(0) of the National Accountability Bureau Ordinance, 1999 and could thus be tried for the allegations levelled by the prosecution-If the facts of the case were ultimately conclusively proved before the Trial Court, such exercise of transfer of company’s funds for the use of the petitioner and his co-accused would be established as an ingenious device or a wicked stratagem for achieving conversion of assets and siphoning off of funds of the company and petitioner might then deserve his credit (or discredit) in that regard for being a key player in the whole affair or for at least being privy to the same-prosecution, in circumstances, was possessed of sufficient material at the present stage to prima facie connect the petitioner with the alleged misappropriation-Delay in holding the petitioner’s trial was not unconscionable or to be sufficient by itself for admitting the petitioner to bail at such a stage-Co-accused of the petitioner was still a fugitive from law and the petitioner’s release on bail at this stage may adversely affect the prosecution’s efforts to present those who had already been arrested in the case so far-Prima facie reasonable grounds did exist to believe in the petitioner’s involvement in the alleged offence and, thus, his custody n connection with the case could neither be termed as illegal nor improper for the purposes of maintaining a petition in the nature of habeas corpus nor such custody could be declared to be without lawful authority and of no legal effect for the purposes of maintaining a wit of certiorari under Art. 199 of the Constitution