ISLAMABAD: In a welcome move, it has happened for the first time since the establishment of the National Accountability Bureau (NAB) 20 years back that an accountability court has granted bail to an arrested accused.Pakistan People’s Party (PPP) senior leader Syed Khurshid Shah has been bailed out by the Sukkur accountability court, exactly three months after his arrest on September 18. No reference has so far been filed against him. “I have to search for even a single instance where an accountability court gave bail to an accused detained by the NAB for investigation,” former NAB prosecutor Imran Shafiq told The News when contacted.He said that there was no example in the NAB’s history since 1999 when an accused apprehended by the anti-graft agency was granted bail by an accountability court.Imran Shafiq referred to Section 9(b) of the National Accountability Ordinance (NAO), 1999 and said it bars all courts to bail out the NAB accused. It says all offences under the NAO shall be non-boilable, and notwithstanding anything contained in sections 426, 491, 497, 498 and 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure or its any other provision, or any other law for the time being in force no court shall have jurisdiction to grant bail to any person accused of any offence under the NAO.He said that since all courts, including the superior judicial forums are debarred from granting bails to the NAB accused, the affected people generally approach the concerned high courts for release through writ petitions and not through proper bail pleas, which are accepted or refused.Amidst the intensified accountability against the opposition leaders over the past two years, not a single politician approached any accountability court or was granted bail in Punjab, Islamabad and Sindh. High profile leaders, including deposed Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif, Maryam Nawaz, Shahbaz Sharif, Asif Ali Zardari, Faryal Talpur, Agha Siraj Durrani, Muftah Ismail, and several others knocked at the doors of the relevant high court and got bails.Imran Shafiq said it was impossible that an accused would be bailed out during the NAB’s investigation. Normally, the accused persons approach the high courts after they were sent to jail on judicial remand, he said.A few months back, the Supreme Court recommended to the government and parliament to vest the accountability courts with the powers of giving bail to relieve the high courts from unnecessary burden of writ petitions in this connection. It said that in the changed scenario, the legislature may, if so advised, consider amending the NAB law appropriately so as to enable an accused person to apply for bail before the relevant accountability court in the first instance. Obviously, the accused will go to the high court and subsequently to the Supreme Court, if he remains aggrieved in this connection.The apex court further ruled that the intention behind introduction of Section 9(b) of the NAO, which ousted the jurisdiction of the superior courts regarding grant of bail, already stands neutralised due to opening of the door for bail through exercise of constitutional jurisdiction of a high court.It held that the entire burden is being shouldered by the high courts, which is an unnecessary drain on their precious time. It said that the high courts and the Supreme Court had always felt difficulty in adjusting the requirements of “without lawful authority” and “of no legal effect” relevant to a writ of certiorari [Article 199(1)(a)(ii) of the Constitution] with the requirements of bail provided in Section 497 of the Criminal Procedure Code. It also recommended revision of the unrealistic timeframe of 30 days for conclusion of a trial by an accountability court as specified in Section 16(a). It has never happened that an accountability court decided a reference within thirty days. However, parliament has done nothing on these recommendations. At a later stage, the Supreme Court pointed out that the legislature has not paid attentions to such proposals.While tightening the parameters of grant of bail to the NAB accused in the plea filed by Nawaz Sharif, the apex court held that a high court can bail out a NAB accused only in exceptional hardship cases under extreme circumstances. The former prime minister’s lawyer had to relentlessly argue in the Islamabad High Court to get bail for his client on health grounds.When NAB produced Khurshid Shah before Sukkur accountability court Judge Ameer Ali Mahaisar on completion of his five-day judicial remand, the NAB prosecutor sought its further extension by two weeks. However, the PPP leader’s counsel Raza Rabbani opposed it and said his client was being made a target of political revenge and, therefore, the case against him should be discharged. He argued that the NAB had neither submitted any reference nor provided any proof in the court against him since his arrest three months ago.When the judge asked why no reference could be submitted in 90 days, the NAB prosecutor said an interim case against 18 persons, including Shah, had been sent to the NAB chairman for approval. He said that the reference would be filed in 15 days.
12-19-2019, 10:52 AM
Unique but welcome phenomenon: AC also grants bail despite legal bar
العرض الشجري