KARACHI, Feb 4: An industrialist, who was convicted by an accountability court of alleged wilful bank loan default, was on Monday granted bail on medical grounds on a surety of Rs5 million by a division bench of the Sindh High Court.

The bench comprised Justice Zahid Kurban Alavi and Justice Sarmad Jalal Osmany.

The bench passed the order after hearing the contentions of the applicant’s counsel, Barrister Aitzaz Ahsan.

Mian Munir Ahmed, chief executive and one of the directors of the Central Cotton Mills, had filed an appeal against his conviction, praying to set aside the impugned judgment.

In March the trial court had awarded him eight-year rigorous imprisonment and had imposed a fine of Rs150 million on charges of corruption and corrupt practices.

It was contended by the applicant’s counsel that after calculating the sentence already undergone by his client and remission granted by the authorities under prison rules, he had served his entire substantive sentence.

Regarding ailment of his client, Barrister Ahsan stated that Mian Munir was an old cardiac patient who was grievously ill and in need of medical treatment and attention. He said the prison authorities had a detailed record of his recent medical examination.

He submitted that the sentence and conviction might be suspended and he might be released on bail till final disposal of his appeal against conviction.

Sindh Advocate General Raja Qureshi argued that a revision order under Article 45 of the constitution was not available to Mian Munir and that there was no vested interest accrued upon the convict, retrospectively.

By his conduct, Raja Qureshi submitted, the jail authorities were lawfully qualified to eliminate the remission earned by the convict on account of his behaviour in jail. The case of the prosecution was that the appellant had acquired huge loans from the Habib Bank but had not paid it back.

On the previous date of hearing the bench had drawn the attention of the advocate general that vide correspondence Jan 21 the registrar of the High Court was informed that the convict had earned remissions of five years, six months and 29 days whereas vide correspondence Jan 30 the remission reflected to have been earned by the convict was only six months and 24 days.