ISLAMABAD: Nationwide Accountability Bureau (NAB) chairman retired Justice Javed Iqbal approached the Supreme Court docket on Friday with a request to annul the Lahore Excessive Court docket’s Feb 6 order granting post-arrest bail to Hamza Shahbaz, Chief of the Opposition within the Punjab Meeting.
The petition searching for depart to attraction towards the Feb 6 LHC order argued that the excessive courtroom had not appreciated the proof out there on file and thus resulted in grave miscarriage of injustice and likewise prejudiced the case of the prosecution.
Hamza Shahbaz, the PML-N chief, is going through a corruption reference for allegedly misusing a grant of Rs360 million launched by the Punjab authorities in 2015 for launching a drainage scheme for the localities in Chiniot district. However the public grant was allegedly misused and as a substitute a 9-10km-long waste water course for M/s Ramzan Sugar Mills Ltd was constructed by fraudulently exhibiting for the drainage scheme. Ramzan Sugar Mills, based on the attraction, belonged to Hamza Shahbaz.
NAB accused former Punjab chief minister Shahbaz Sharif of abusing his authority by ordering the supply of unlawful pecuniary benefit to Ramzan Sugar Mills.
Within the attraction, NAB alleged that Hamza Shahbaz had miserably failed to determine that his involvement within the reference referred to as for additional probe relatively he was totally implicated within the fee of offence by the proof on file and prima facie he was linked.
However, it added, the excessive courtroom neglected the very important facet of the case which prima facie emphatically established the alleged involvement of Hamza Shahbaz within the offence. Subsequently, the excessive courtroom order was not tenable within the eyes of the regulation and is liable to be dismissed this rating alone, the attraction argued.
The attraction contended that the order was additionally not tenable underneath the regulation as a result of regardless of contemplating the tentative evaluation of all of the incriminating materials on file, the excessive courtroom got here to the conclusion that there have been no affordable grounds for believing that the accused had dedicated a cognizable and non-bailable offence.
“Thus exceptional circumstances were taken into consideration by the bench while accepting the writ petition and granting post-arrest bail,” the attraction stated, including that the excessive courtroom had handed the bail-granting order whereas going into deeper appreciation of proof by holding an in depth inquiry into the deserves of the case in train of its constitutional jurisdiction particularly which had triggered prejudice to the case of the prosecution, trial of which was pending within the courtroom of competent jurisdiction.
“It’s a settled regulation that courts when seized of bail issues should not allowed to settle the prosecution case to avert or interrupt the conventional course of prison process and can’t substitute its personal appraisement of proof for that of the trial courts.
Thus searching for suspension of arrest by submitting writ petition is just not permissible since such a treatment can solely be granted when there isn’t any satisfactory efficacy. Subsequently, the writ petition earlier than the excessive courtroom was not maintainable,” the attraction argued.
Revealed in Daybreak, March 21st, 2020