Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: Mian Muhammad Shahbaz Sharif VS Respondent: NAB, etc
Court Name: Lahore High Court Judge(s): Ali Baqar Najafi, Aalia Neelum, Syed Shahbaz Ali Rizvi Title: Mian Muhammad Shahbaz Sharif vs NAB, etc Case No.: W.P. No.20793/2021 Date of Judgment:2021-04-22 Reported As: 2021 LHC 1006 Result: Appeal disposed off
Judgment This Full Bench constituted, under Rule (5) Chapter 4, Part-H of High Court Rules and Orders Volume-V read with section 378 of Code of Criminal Procedure, by the Hon'ble Chief Justice as Referee Judges after when the Justice Sardar Muhammad Sarfraz Dogar and Justice Asjad Javaid Ghural could not reach on consensus in the matter of grant of post arrest bail to the petitioner as the senior member of the Division Bench granted the post arrest bail and the other member refused. Rule (5) of Chapter 4, Part-H of High Court Rules and Orders Volume-V and section 378 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1860 are reproduced as under:- Rule (5) Chapter 4, Part-H of High Court Rules and Orders V olume-V "When an appeal is heard by a Bench consisting of two Judges and the Judg es composing the Bench being equally divided in opinion as to the decision on a point, state that point for reference to another Judge or Judges under clause 26 of the Letters Patent, the case shall be heard on that point by one or more Judges to be nominated by the Chief Justice. The Chief Justice may be such other Judge or one of such other Judges". 378 Cr .P.C. "Procedure in case of difference of opinion. When any such case is heard before a Bench of Judges and such Judges are equally divided in opinion, the case, with their opinions thereon, shall be laid before another Judge, and such Judge, after such hearing as he thinks fit, shall deliver his opinion, and the judgement or order shall follow such opinion." Since the hon'ble brother Judges did not formulate their issue wise difference of opinion, after perusal of the two orders passed in the matter of bail dated 14.04.2021 the following points of dissent are found by us:- a) Whether the petitioner is entitled to the grant of post arrest bail in ACR No.22/2020 (State versus Mian Shahbaz Sharif, etc.) a reference under section 18(g) read with section 24(b) of the National Accountability Ordinance, 1999 pending in the Accountability Court No.2, Lahore on the allegation of assets beyond means under section 9(a),(iv),(v), and (xii) of NAO, 1999 and section 3 of Anti Money Laundering Act 2010,
---
## Page 2
punishable under section 10 of NAO, 1999 and schedule thereto for earning assets beyond known source of income to the petitioner to the extent of 7328 Millions approximately through Fictitious Telegraphic Transfer (FTT) in the name of the co-accused family members and Benamidars and others? b) Whether the petitioner is entitled to the post arrest bail in the ACR No.22/2020 on medical grounds? c) Whether the petitioner is entitled to the post arrest bail in ACR No.22/2020 on the ground of delay in conclusion of the trial? 2. Before giving our opinion on the above three points of dissent it is appropriate to narrate some necessary facts. 3. Through this Constitutional petition, petitioner seeks bail after arrest in the Accountability Reference No. 22 of 20 made under Section 18(g) read with Section 24(b) of the National Accountability Ordinance, 1999 on the allegation that on receipt of report from the Financ ial Monitoring Unit (FMU) , Government of Pakistan regarding suspicious and currency transactions (STR/CTR) in the bank accounts of Mian Muhammad Shahbaz Sharif/petitioner and his other family members and business entities as owned by them and also of estab lishing 9 industrial units thereby acquiring billions of rupees from the year 2008 till 2018. During the inquiry , it was found that assets of the petitioner and co-accused family members and benamidars exponentially increased in value 412 times from 1998 to 2018 as it increased from Rs. 14.865 Million to Rs. 6112 Million without having the corresponding sources of income. The inquiry was upgraded into investigation conducted in respect of allegation of corruption and corrupt practices defined under Section 9(a) of the NAO, 1999 punishable under Section 10 of NAO , 1999 read with Sections 3 & 4 of Anti Money Laundering Act (AMLA) 2010 and the respective schedules thereto. During the investigation, it was revealed that petitioner remained a Member of National Assembly (1990 -1993), Member of Provincial Assembly/Opposition Leader , Punjab (1993-1997), held of the office of the Chief Minister , Punjab (1997-1999) and then from 2008 to 2018 and in the year 2018 the petitioner was elected as MNA and presently is Opposition Leader in the National Assembly . Mst. Nusrat Shahbaz, his wife, Muhammad Hamza Shahbaz Sharif and Suleman Shahbaz Sharif, sons, Mrs. Rabia Imran Ali and Mrs. Javeria Ali, daughters and Mst. Tehmina Durrani, second wife of the petitioner , were all close relatives and benamidars of the petitioner . Besides, co-accused/Nisar Ahmed, an employee in the Chief Minister Secretari at, Ali Ahmed Khan, an employee in the Chief Minister Office and Syed Muhammad Tahir Naqvi, an employee of M/s Ramzan Sugar Mills Pvt. Ltd and frontman of the petitioner , are also his benamidars. According to the allegations, accused/ Qasim Qayyum, an unregistered money changer , laundered the disproportionate funds of the petitione r and his family members. Co-accused/R ashid Karamat, Masroor Anwar , Muhammad Usman, Fazal Dad Abbasi and Muhammad Shoaib Qamar , the employees of Sharif Group of Companies also allegedly committed the predicated offences of money laundering and thereby actively aided and abetted the petitioner and his family members in the acquisition of assets disproportionate to their known source of income. Co-accused/Haroon Yousaf Aziz, son-in-law of the petitioner also committed the offence of money laundering who had falsely shown a loan extended to co-accused Suleman Shahbaz Sharif, without having proportionate source of income. Muhammad Mushtaq and Yasir Mushtaq, two private persons, in collusion with the petitioner , his two sons and others also laundered the disproportionate funds of the accused persons under the garb of fake loans. Said two persons became approver during the investigation. According to the NAB, the co- accused/Shahid Rafique and Aftab Mahmood, were the money changers at Lahore and U.K., respectively , who aided and abetted with the petitioner and his other family members who arranged Fictitious Telegraphic Transfer (FTT) showing the funds transacted from U.K. whereas no such amount was ever sent by any genuine remitter but by petitioner and his family members provided cash from unknown sources for the purposes of money laundering. During the period 2008 to 2018, huge multifold and disproportionate increase in the assets of the petitioner and his co-accused family members swallowed to Rs. 6122 Million whereas the present value of the assets is Rs. 7328 Million during the period when he was also the Chief Minister , Punjab and had no corresponding loan and proportionate source of income. The petitioner and his family members establis hed 13 companies in their own names and 4 benamidar concerns in the name of the employees/benamidars for the benefit of the petitioner and his co-accused family member . Acceding to the NAB investigation, petitioner had claimed the business and agriculture income but it could not be substantiated and was found fake. In other words, the total value of disproportionate assets and expenditu res of the accused persons comes to Rs. 6122 Million whereas
---
## Page 3
corresponding source of income from known source of income were insuf ficient and that the present value of asset was Rs. 7328 Million because the value of the shares in the companies increased to 1206 Million. To explain, the individual ownership, the detail of the assets of the petitioner and his family members is reflected from the following table :- Sr.#Disproportionate Assets Held Amount(M) 1 In his own name (Mian Muhammad Shahbaz Sharif) 269.301 2 In the name of Wife Mrs. Nusrat Shahbaz Sharif 299.746 3 In the name of Son Muhammad Hamza Shahbaz Sharif 533.00 4 In the name of Son Suleman Shahbaz Sharif 2259.763 5 In the name of Daughter Mrs. Rabia Imran (Fake TTs) 57.517 6 In the name of Daughter Mrs. Javeria Ali (Fake TTs) 31.329 7 In the name of Benamidars (M/s Good Nature Trading Company Pvt. Ltd & M/s Unitas Steel Pvt.Ltd.)1884.817 8 In the name of benamidars (M/s Nisar Trading Concern)515.271 9 Undeclared / unjustified banking deposits through Benamidars / Benami Concerns271.393 Disproportionate Assets acquired till the 30.06.2018 6,122.137 Current V alue of Shares based on Net Assets of Companies 1206.000 Current V alue of Disproportionate Assets 7,328.137 Details of Disproportionate assets held in the name of accused persons are enumerated below: (a) Immovable Assets: Sr.#Description of Property Ownership Value (Rs.) 1 House No. 87 & 96, Block H, Model Town, Lahore Measuring 10 KanalMrs. Nusrat Shahbaz Sharif128,776,534 2 Nishat Lodges, Doonga Gali, Abbottabad Measuring 9 Kanal 2.5 MarlaMrs. Nusrat Shahbaz Sharif57,804,850 3 House No. 8/7, Block A, Phase V , DHA, Lahore measuring 10 MarlaMrs. Tehmina Durrani24,000,000 4 Plot No 8/8, Block A, Phase V , DHA, Lahore measuring 10 MarlaMian Muhammad Shahbaz Sharif14,500,000 5 Cottage No. 23 & V illa No. 19 at Whispering Pines, Mauza Makhnial Measuring 13.5 MarlaMrs. Tehmina Durrani14,700,000 6 House No(s). 48-5L Judicial Employees Cooperative Society , Lahore measuring 06 Kanal, 09 Marla and 135-sq.Ft& House No. (s)61A,62,63,64,65,6 8,69,70,71, Block K Johar Town, Lahore measuring 2 Kanal, 2 MarlaMuhammad Hamza Shahbaz Sharif136,440,669 7 Agricultural land measuring 391 Kanal & 12 Marla located at Mauza Dorahtta, Tehsil Bhowana ChiniotMuhammad Hamza Shahbaz Sharif &95,773,702
---
## Page 4
Suleman Shahbaz 8 2x Foreign Apartment in UK Mian Muhammad Shahbaz Sharif147,863,088 Total 619.858 Million (b) Movable Assets : Sr. #Name of CompanyDate of Incorp.Name of Shareholder2017 Value in PKR 1 Ramzan Sugar Mills4/8/1990 Hamza Shahbaz Sharif Suleman Shahbaz Sharif Mrs. Nusrat Shahbaz Mrs. Rabia Imran Mrs. Javeria Ali4,617,000 2,679,000 6,441,000 120,000 120,000Inheritance 2 European Asian Trading Corporation Pvt. Ltd1/2/05 Suleman Shahbaz Sharif Mrs. Rabia Imran10,000 10,000100,000 100,000 3 Madni Trading Pvt. Ltd.1/2/05 Hamza Shahbaz Sharif Suleman Shahbaz Sharif Mrs. Nusrat Shahbaz1,000 1,000 80010,000 10,000 8,000 4 Sharif Feed Mills Pvt Ld.29/6/05 Hamza Shahbaz Sharif Suleman Shahbaz Sharif9,999,800 10,000,00099,998,000 100,000,000 5 Madina Construction Company Pvt. Ltd.17/4/06 Hamza Shahbaz Sharif Suleman Shahbaz Sharif1,000 1,00010,000 10,000
---
## Page 5
6 Sharif Poultry Farms Pvt. Ltd10/4/07 Hamza Shahbaz Sharif Suleman Shahbaz Sharif Mrs. Nusrat Shahbaz Mrs. Rabia Imran1,000 1,000 800 1,00010,000 10,000 8,000 10,000 7 Sharif Dairy Farms Pvt. Ltd27/11/08 Hamza Shahbaz Sharif Suleman Shahbaz Sharif Mrs. Nusrat Shahbaz1,000 9,998,000 80010,000 99,980,000 8,000 8 Ramzan Energy Limited12/5/10 Hamza Shahbaz Sharif Suleman Shahbaz Sharif Mrs. Nusrat Shahbaz Sharif Feed Mills10,000 4,010,020 8,000 5,289,677100,000 40,100,200 80,000 52,896,770 9 Sharif Milk Products Pvt. Ltd.07/09/1 1 Hamza Shahbaz Sharif Suleman Shahbaz Sharif Mrs. Nusrat Shahbaz1,000 1,000 80010,000 10,000 8,000 10 Crystal Plastic Pvt. Ltd.02/07/12 Hamza Shahbaz Sharif Suleman Shahbaz Sharif Mrs. Nustrat Shahbaz1,957,500 1,957,500 434,80019,575,000 19,575,000 4,348,000 11Chiniot Power Ltd.26/08/13 Suleman Shahbaz Sharif Mrs. Nusrat170,863,600 98,000 1,0001,708,636,000 980,000 10,000
---
## Page 6
Shahbaz Zainab Suleman 12 AG Energy Consultant s Pvt. Ltd.24/09/13 Suleman Shahbaz Sharif51,000 510,000 13 Al-Arabia Sugar Mills Ltd18/11/16 Hamza Shahbaz Sharif Suleman Shahbaz Sharif Mrs. Nusrat Shahbaz Ramzan Sugar Mills Sharif Feed Mills155,000 155,000 1,000 269,990 29,0001,550,000 1,550,000 10,000 2,699,900 290,000 14 Unitas Power Ltd.7/10/2016 Hamza Shahbaz Sharif Suleman Shahbaz Sharif175,000 175,0001,750,000 1,750,000 2,157Million (C) Director 's Loan to the companies by accused Muhammad Hamza Sharif and Suleman Shahbaz Sharif Sr. No.Companies Name Director 's Loan 1 M/s Sharif Feed Mills Pvt. Ltd. 79,139,279 2 M/s Sharif Dairy Farms Pvt. Ltd. 358,319,955 3 M/s Chiniot Power Ltd. 5,000,000 4 M/s Ramzan Sugar Mills Ltd. 27,482,375 5 M/s Madni Trading Pvt. Ltd. 6,286,600 6 M/s Madina Construction Pvt. Ltd. 9,335,770 7 M/s Sharif Poultry Farms Pvt. Ltd. 8,188,087 8 M/s Sharif Milk Products Pvt. Ltd. 112,267,235 9 M/s Crystal Plastics Ltd. 2,745,154 10 M/s Al-Arabia Sugar Mills Ltd. 5,000,000 Total 613.764 Million (d) Benami assets held in the name of employees--Rs. 2,400.088 Million a. M/s Good Nature Trading Company Pvt. Ltd--- Rs.1,804.527 Million b. M/s Unitas Steel Pvt. Ltd.----Rs. 81.050 Million c. M/s Nisar Trading Concern----Rs. 515.271 million 4. According to the said reference, property No. 96-H Model Town, Lahore was notified as Chief Minister Camp Office by the petitioner and, therefore, became direct beneficiary of the said property . Rs. 4.900 Million were transferred by Mrs. Nusrat Shahbaz Sharif, in the account of the petitioner bearing No. 1019-79001 146-03,
---
## Page 7
maintained at Habib Bank Limited, New Muslim Town Branch, Lahore to pay custom duty of Toyota Land Cruiser owned by the petitioner . Another amount of Rs. 2.450 Million was also transferred by her in the account of the petitioner . 5. Co-accused/ Muhammad Hamza Shahbaz Sharif, received 23 fake foreign remittances of Rs. 181.61 1 Million from UAE and U.K. which was used as a source of seed money into the business owned by the petitioner and his family members. He also used said fake remittances to purchase property No. 96-H Model Town, Lahore for the benefit of the petitioner . Likewise, Sulem an Shahbaz Sharif/co-accused received 111 fake foreign remittances of Rs. 803.907 Million from fake/bogus foreign remittances in his bank accounts maintained at Silk Bank, Faysal Bank, Bank Al-Falah and deposited 49 foreign pay orders amounting to Rs. 375.695 Million in his Account No. 1003371 199 maintained at Bank Alfalah, Circular Road Branch, Lahore. He received Rs. 83.781 Million in his account at Silk Bank. He also received Rs. 647.954 Million fake foreign remittances with the aid and abetment of Muhammad Mushtaq, Yasir Mushtaq (approvers) and Syed Muhammad Tahir Naqv i (PO). Mrs. Rabia Imran Ali and Mrs. Javeria Ali, also aided and abetted the petitioner , their father , and received Rs. 57.516 Million and Rs. 31.329 Million fake foreign remittances for the benefit of the petitioner . 6. The petitioner alleged to have established a benami company M/s Good Nature Trading Company (Pvt.) Ltd and M/s Unitas Steel (Pvt.) Ltd in the year 2015-16 whereas Nisar Ahmed, Ali Ahmed and Syed Muhammad Tahir Naqvi, were shown its directors/shareholders having entire shareholding to be divided amongst them. Nisar Ahmed, was employed in relaxation of rules by the petitioner being the Chief Minister . Foreign remittances of Rs. 112.625 Million, Rs. 71.950 Million and Rs. 39.300 Million were received by him from UAE and U.K. through bank transactions whereas Nisar Ahmed, has no source of income. Likewise, M/s Waqar Trading Company was the other benamidar . Business was run in the name of Syed Muhammad Tahir Naqvi who was employee of Ramzan Sugar Mills (Pvt.) Ltd. 7. The petitioner and the co-accused persons alleged to have received Rs. 11 Million from Muhammad Mushtaq, of Al-Rehman Gardens, Rs. 2 Million from Nasrullah Khan Warraich, of Al-Jalil Town, Rs. 2.5 Million from Muhammad Iqbal Sajid, of ISUZU Motors. Rs. 15 Million from Raja Ali Akbar of Ghouri Town, Rs. 7.5 Million from Malik Saif ul Malook Khokhar , Rs. 1 Million from Altaf Hussain, of Gohar Publishers, Rs. 10 Million from Arshad Javed Warraich, MPA, Sialkot, Rs. 1 Million from Muhammad Abdullah, brother of Asadullah Arain, ex-MP A and Rs. 15 Million from Nawabzada Tahir ul Mulk, under the garb of party funds in the account of M/s Nisar Trading Concern. The petitioner and the co-accused persons thereby acquired benefit of Rs. 65 Million through dishonest means in addition to Rs. 460.271 Million which were deposited in the benami account without disclosing the source. 8. The petitioner and the co-accused persons also alleged to have aided and abetted benamidar/Suleman Shahbaz Sharif, for receiving Rs. 603.064 Million from Muhammad Mushtaq, by concealing the true origin of the money . 9. According to the Reference filed by NAB, the foregoing facts and the evidence collected so far sufficiently establishes that the petitioner and the co-accused persons have acquired assets in their own names and in the name of benamidars/associates to the tune of Rs. 7328 Million disproportionate to their known source of income and for which they cannot reasonably account for. They were, therefore, involved in the commission of offence of corruption and corrupt practices as defined under Section 9(a)(iv)(v) and (xii) of NAO, 1999 read with Section 3 of the Anti Money Laundering Act (AMLA) 2010 punishable under Section 10 of NAO, 1999 read with Section 4 of Anti Money Laundering Act (AMLA) 2010 and schedules thereto. 10. Learned counsel for the petitioner contend that the petitioner was arrested on 28.09.2020 and only 10 prosecution witnesses out of total 110 prosecution witnesses could be recorded and at present the learned trial court is vacant. Place reliance upon PLD 2002 SC 546, titled "Ch. Zulfiqar Ali versus The State", PLD 2019 SC 112 titled "TallatIshaq versus National Accountability Bureau through Chairman, and others" and the order passed in W.P. No.7425/2021 (Hamza Shahbaz Sharif Vs. NAB, etc.) to support their arguments on the delay in conclusion of trial. Submit that no tangible evidence is available against the petitioner as none of the PWs has ever stated that the money was sent or receive d by the petitioner directly for his own benefit. The petitioner has declared his assets in FBR at the relevant time, therefore, he cannot be asked to disclose other sources before the NAB. Place reliance upon PLD 2020 Lah. 205 titled "Maryam Nawaz Sharif versus Chairman, NAB and 2 others",
---
## Page 8
PLD 2020 Sindh 365(372) titled "Agha Massihuddin Khan Durrani and others versus Chairman, National Accountability Bureau, Islamabad and others", PLD 2021 SC 1 titled " Justice Qazi Faez Isa versus The President of Pakistan and others" . They also argue that the allegation of benami transaction in respect of the co- accused person could not be proved on the basis that it lacked pre-requisites. Place reliance upon PLD 2002 SC 408 titled "Mst. Zahida Sattar and others versus Federation of Pakistan and others", 2003 P.Cr.L.J. 266 titled "Makhdoom Javed Hashmi versus The State and 2 others", 2016 P.Cr.L.J. 1343 titled "Ghulam Sarwar Khan Lalwani versus The State", PLD 2017 Lah. 23 titled "Brig. (R)Imtiaz Ahmad versus The State", 2011 SCMR 136 titled "Khalid Aziz versus The State", PLD 2011 SC 1144 titled "Ghani-ur-Rehman versus National Accountability Bureau and others" . They pray for the grant of post arrest bail also on the ground that where there is dissent in grant of post arrest bail, case of further inquiry is made out. 11. Conversely , the learned Prosecutors appearing on behalf of the NAB submit that the allegation against the petitioner is that of assets beyond means and that in response to various call-up notices the co-accused persons did not appear . According to the allegation, in the year 1988-90, total declared assets of the petitioner and his entire family members were of rupees 2.1 million which increased to 14.8 million in 1998 through industrial business which he inherited but surprisingly when he became the Chief Minister Punjab in 1997 his assets started increasing and in the year 2018 it amounted to 7328 million which were declared by him. According to NAB, 96-H Model Town, which is comprised of 10-kanals was in the name of Nusrat Shahbaz, wife of the petitioner , purchased against 128.776 million. This is the place where the petitioner as Chief Minister made his Camp Office from 2010 to 2018. Their main emphasis is that all the properties were made after 2005 through Fictitious Telegraphic Transfer (FTT) and the money was received and not as a result of family settlement. Another property Nishat Lodges Donga Gali measuring 9-kanals 2.5-marlas was in the name of Nusrat Shahbaz which was valued Rs.57.804 but she had no sources of income of her own. A 6-kanal property in LDA Judicial Colony belonge d to Hamza Shahbaz son of the petitioner and another house measuring 10 marlas at DHA was gifted to Tehmina Durrani against 38.5 million. One property in Islamabad valuing Rs.14.773 million of said Tehmina Durrani belonged to the petitioner was gifted to her 391 kanals 12 marlas agricultural land belonged to Hamza Shahbaz and Suleman Shahbaz, two sons of the petitioner is valuing Rs. 95.773. Further submit that 13 industrial units were established from these Fictitious Telegraphic Transfer (FTTs). According to the learned Prosecutors Ikaram ul Haq, Nadeem Saeed and Ghulam Rasool Gorsi, recorded their statement under section 161 Cr.P.C. in which the family members of the petitioner were directly involved and since all were benamidars for the benefit of the petition er, he is to be held responsible. The petitioner has not shown any business through which he could earn money Rs.26.9 million which is unaccounted money . They , therefore, pray for dismissal of the writ petition. 12. Arguments heard. File perused. 13. Our findings on the point of dissent mentioned in clause "B and C" are as follows:- 14. The petitioner according to paragraph "t" of the grounds of his bail petition has stated that he is 70 years old and has prolapsed disc at L4-5 level with Retrolisthesis, a cancer survivor and is known case of Adenocarcinoid Tumor of Appendix and status post right hemi colectomy since January 2003 when he underwent a surgery . His yearly follow up CT with Ardenal Gland, cancer marker Chromogranin A and B level are conducted to examine the possibility of recurrence of cancer which were delayed because of his confinem ent in jail. The grant of bail on medical grounds has been well explained by the apex Court by giving guidelines on the following judgments followed in grant of bail to Mian Muhammad Nawaz Sharif on medical grounds on 25.10.2019 in Writ Petition No. 6351 1 of 2019. MUHAMMAD ARSHAD versus THE STATE and another (1997 SCMR 1275 ) Malik MUHAMMAD YOUSAF ULLAH KHAN versus THE STATE and another (PLD 1995 Suprem e Court 58), HANIF AHMED BHA TTI versus FEDERA TION OF PAKIST AN and others (PLD 2005 Karachi 364) IMTIAZ AHMED versus The STATE through Special Prosecutor , ANF (2017 SCMR 1194) and SHARJEEL INAM MEMON versus NATIONAL ACCOUNT ABILITY BUREAU ( 2018 SCMR 2023 ). In none of them, medical ground can be accepted as claimed rather is required to be investigated by the Medical Board comprising of the experts in the subject to ascertain the type and severity of ailment and the availability of essential treatment inside jail. The file does not reflect any such report. Besides, the delay in conclusion of trial is a
---
## Page 9
ground agitated also in clause "t" as the petitioner was arrested on 28.09.2020 and as many as 110 witnesses have been cited in the volumes record of 58 volumes which were made part of the reference. There is no report from the learned trial court about the delay in trial and vacancy in the Accountability Court, needless to mention that in the presence of decision made by the authorities that the vacant Accountability Courts will be filled up soon, we are not persuaded that it is a case of incarceration since statutory ground is not availa ble to a person under National Accountability Ordinance, 1999, therefor e, by referring the case of the brother of the petitioner namely , Mian Muhammad Nawaz Sharif versus NAB (W.P. No. 6351 1 of 2019 decided on 25.10.2019), we are of the considered and unanimous opinion that case of the petitioner for the grant of post arrest bail on medical ground as well as on delay in conclusion of the trial is not made out, therefore, we side with our learned brother Mr. Asjad Javed Ghural. J., on points b & c. 15. As far as point of dissent in clause "a" for the grant of bail on merits is concerned, it may be acknowledged that we have been enlightened by the valuable assistance rendered by the learned counsels for the petitioner as well as the learned Prosecutor for NAB and now well understand that the prosecution case is simply that petitioner being the public office holder has amassed money and had built up the assets in the name of his close relatives and the dependents as Beanamidars through fraudulent FTT s whereas the petitioner was the main beneficiary . 16. To further…
Read the unabridged text and precedent citation network on Al Wakeelo Legal Research Platform.