LAHORE: Former principal secretary to the prime minister, Fawad Hassan Fawad, on Monday filed a second petition in the Lahore High Court for post-arrest bail on fresh grounds in the assets beyond means case lodged by the National Accountability Bureau (NAB).

Previously, the court had denied him bail in the same case on Feb 14 while allowing in the Ashiana Housing Scheme case.

In his fresh petition, Mr Fawad argued that he had been behind bars for 15 months and his health had also deteriorated during the detention. He denied a charge of the NAB that he owned a plaza in Rawalpindi valued at Rs5 billion and 14 “benami” bank accounts. He said the plaza being attributed to him was in fact owned by a company of his brothers and other family members.

He said the plaza was constructed with a bank loan and the Federal Board of Revenue had its complete record since 1995.

The petitioner asked the court to release him on bail as the trial had not been completed since over 15 months of his arrest and detention in jail on judicial remand.

A two-judge bench headed by Justice Ali Baqar Najafi will hear the petition on Tuesday (today).

Published in Dawn, December 10th, 2019

Opinion

Editorial

Impending slaughter
Updated 07 May, 2024

Impending slaughter

Seven months into the slaughter, there are no signs of hope.
Wheat investigation
07 May, 2024

Wheat investigation

THE Shehbaz Sharif government is in a sort of Catch-22 situation regarding the alleged wheat import scandal. It is...
Naila’s feat
07 May, 2024

Naila’s feat

IN an inspirational message from the base camp of Nepal’s Mount Makalu, Pakistani mountaineer Naila Kiani stressed...
Plugging the gap
06 May, 2024

Plugging the gap

IN Pakistan, bias begins at birth for the girl child as discriminatory norms, orthodox attitudes and poverty impede...
Terrains of dread
Updated 06 May, 2024

Terrains of dread

Restored faith in the police is unachievable without political commitment and interprovincial support.
Appointment rules
Updated 06 May, 2024

Appointment rules

If the judiciary had the power to self-regulate, it ought to have exercised it instead of involving the legislature.