ISLAMABAD: The Islamabad High Court (IHC) on Friday rejected post-arrest bail petitions of two accused in Employees Old-Age Benefit Institution (EOBI) scam.

The court, however, accepted the bail applications of three other accused in the case, Najamus Saqib and Abid Mehmood, members of EOBI investment board as well as Hazoor Bukhsh Naeem, a local land owner of Fatehjang.

According to the investigations into Rs40 billion misappropriations, which came to light in 2012, the then EOBI management made investments in DHA scheme, purchased Crown Plaza in Islamabad at double than the market price and in an alleged illegal manner.

As per reports submitted by the FIA in the court, the EOBI management purchased two 4,300cc Prados for personal use of EOBI officers, purchased two controversial plots in Sukkur, bought seven plots from the CDA.

The FIA said the EOBI purchased 40 kanals and 16 marlas in Lahore, four floors of Plaza Hotel in Lahore and made investment in a seven-star hotel in front of the Lahore airport.

Deciding bail petitions of the accused IHC Justice Noorul Haq N. Qureshi observed that Rana Abdul Qayyum, owner of Crown Plaza and Wahid Khurshid Kunwar, director general (investment), EOBI, were not entitled to bail because they were ‘directly involved’ in the purchase of Crown Plaza located in sector F-7 Markaz of Islamabad.

As per assessment of NESPAK, value of the plaza in June 2012 was Rs626 million. The EOBI authorities, however, paid Rs1,002 to Qayyum.

According to the FIR, registered by the Federal Investigation Agency (FIA) last year, Zafar Iqbal Gondal, former chairman EOBI and DG Investment Wahid Khurshid Kunwar “induced Abdul Qayyum into selling his property against handsome amount and asked him to give a bid of his own choice which will be approved, but he had to pay some percentage to the management of EOBI as kickbacks.”

The FIR alleged that under the deal, Gondal and his associates extorted Rs299.9 million as kickbacks from Qayyum.

The court further observed that Saqib and Mehmood were part of the said deal, but they were not directly involved.

Published in Dawn, July 12th, 2014

Opinion

Merging for what?

Merging for what?

The concern is that if the government is thinking of cutting costs through the merger, we might even lose the functionality levels we currently have.

Editorial

Dubai properties
Updated 16 May, 2024

Dubai properties

It is hoped that any investigation that is conducted will be fair and that no wrongdoing will be excused.
In good faith
16 May, 2024

In good faith

THE ‘P’ in PTI might as well stand for perplexing. After a constant yo-yoing around holding talks, the PTI has...
CTDs’ shortcomings
16 May, 2024

CTDs’ shortcomings

WHILE threats from terrorist groups need to be countered on the battlefield through military means, long-term ...
Reserved seats
Updated 15 May, 2024

Reserved seats

The ECP's decisions and actions clearly need to be reviewed in light of the country’s laws.
Secretive state
15 May, 2024

Secretive state

THERE is a fresh push by the state to stamp out all criticism by using the alibi of protecting national interests....
Plague of rape
15 May, 2024

Plague of rape

FLAWED narratives about women — from being weak and vulnerable to provocative and culpable — have led to...