KARACHI, Oct 8: A division bench of the Sindh High Court granted bail on Monday to a former minister of commerce and a former secretary-general of the Pakistan People’s Party, Chaudhry Ahmed Mukhtar, facing trial before an accountability court, against a surety of Rs10 million.
The bench consisted of Justice S. A. Sarwana and Justice Mujeebullah Siddiqui.
The reference against the former minister pertained to irregularities an corrupt practices in a deal of 50,000 tons rice, which allegedly caused a loss of about Rs67.8 million to the national exchequer.
When the bail plea came up for hearing, S. Tariq Ali, counsel for the National Accountability Bureau, opposed the bail on the grounds that he was not entitled to statutory delay.
Agreeing with the arguments advanced by Farooq H. Naek, the court granted bail to Ahmed Mukhtar against a surety of Rs10 million and personal bond in the like amount.
Mr Naik, counsel for the applicant, prayed for grant of bail on statutory grounds under the 3rd proviso to section 497 of CrPC.
He submitted that the applicant had been in detention for a period of one year and five months.
He also submitted that after amendment in section 9 (b) this court had jurisdiction to grant bail under sections 497/498 of CrPC. He argued that prior to the amendment made in section 9 (b) of the NAB Ordinance, vide ordinance No XXXV of 2001, dated 10. 8. 2001, the High Court had no jurisdiction to grant bail and the jurisdiction was vested in the Supreme Court only.
He further submitted that it had been provided in section 17 of the NAB Ordinance that notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, unless there was anything inconsistent with the provisions of this Ordinance, the provisions of CrPC should apply to the proceedings under the NAB Ordinance, if the provisions contained in the CrPC were not inconsistent with the provisions of the NAB Ordinance.
He contended that there was no provision in the NAB Ordinance ousting the applicability of sections 497/498 of CrPC, and the provision contained in Section 9 (b) of the NAB Ordnance was confined to the exercise of jurisdiction by the court, which meant accountability court as defined in section 5 (g) of the NAB Ordinance.
Syed Tariq Ali, representing NAB, conceded that after amendment of section 9 (b), this court had jurisdiction to grant bail under sections 497/498 of CrPC, and that there was no provision in the NAB Ordinance to exclude the applicability of sections 497/498 of CrPC. Consequently, the said provision should be applicable. However, he argued that notwithstanding the statutory provision for grant of bail by the court under the 3rd proviso to section 497 of CrPC, bail should not be granted.
He submitted that it was an established principle of law that where the trial court had already recorded substantial prosecution evidence, and the prosecution case was likely to be completed in very near future, the superior courts should refrain from exercising jurisdiction for granting bail.
There was no cavil to the proposition on which Tariq Ali had placed reliance, but its applicability to the present case was misplaced, the court held in its order. The principle was not applicable to the present case.
As for the grant of bail on statutory delay was concerned, no observation was needed to be made by the court in respect of evidence recorded by the trial court, and therefore the principle was not applicable. It should not be adhered to for additional reason that under the 3rd proviso to section 497 of CrPC on account of statutory delay, it was a mandatory requirement that accused be released to bail.
Without adverting to the merits of the case, the court held that the applicant was entitled to be released on bail on account of statutory delay only. So without considering merits of the case, the applicant was granted bail in the sum of Rs10 million on furnishing one solvent surety, and execution of a PR bond in the like amount, to the satisfaction of the trial court.
