HYDERABAD: The Accountability Court Hyderabad has accepted unconditional apology of medical superintendent of Sir Cowasjee Institute of Psychiatry and Behavioural Sciences and three others over unwarranted stay of an accused in the mental health facility.
The court had passed the order in the light of a probe by National Accountability Bureau into the stay of the accused in a Rs4.48bn reference pertaining to Right Bank Outfall Drain-II.
The special judge of the Anticorruption (Central) passed an order on a plea filed by Sarmad Leghari, counsel for the accused, Faheem Ahmed Soomro, against a July 23, 2025 order of the Accountability Court-I judge. The NAB inquiry had also named the defence counsel for facilitating the accused.
According to Leghari, the impugned July 23 order by trial court judge Mrs Naseem Akhtar directed the NAB to conduct inquiry regarding the accused.
Accused faces trial in Rs4.48bn NAB reference
He urged the court to recall the July 23 order while stating that under Section 18 of the National Accountability Ordinance (NAO) 1999, the court shall not take cognizance of any offence except on a reference initiated by the NAB.
His application was heard by the incharge judge, Special Judge Anticorruption (Central), since the Accountability Court-I judge was unavailable.
The incharge judge passed an order on Sept 16, mentioning that the NAB DG conducted the inquiry on the directives of the then-judge.
He said Soomro was facing a trial in Reference No. 2/23 (Munawar Ali Bozdar and others). The accused was produced before the then-judge and Soomro committed gross misconduct, resulting in his being given a show-cause notice.
His reply was filed thereafter and he was sentenced/fined on Aug 7 and remanded in judicial custody in the central prison. Prior to it, he was confined in Sir C.J. Institute of Psychiatry and Behavioural Sciences Hyderabad from there he was shifted to the prison.
The incharge judge noted the then-judge found necessary to issue directives to the NAB DG to conduct an inquiry that in what capacity, the accused was produced before the court in an ambulance, and how and by whom he was facilitated.
The DG in his report held Sarmad Laghari, MS Dr Nisar Sohu, Accountant Gansham Das and Head Constable Ghulam Sarwar responsible for it.
All four persons appeared before the court and filed comments, denying and refuting everything while tendering “unconditional apology”. The NAB’s special prosecutor and investigating officer Waqar Ahmed were in attendance and were satisfied. The court noted that show causes issued to them stood confined to the record.
The NAB DG in his report before the court said that the accused was shifted to Sir C.J. Institute from the prison. However, the board of the relevant hospital admitted him on June 21, 2025 in the forensic psychiatric ward.
He stayed there for 32 days. “Medical record of the UTP [under trial prisoner] was perused and it was found his condition was always stable as mentioned on various daily check-ups of doctors of the said hospital,” stated the inquiry report.
The UTP was shown to be suffering from a psychiatric disorder, but his daily check-ups reflected that he was fit.
When Dr Humayun Qazi was confronted, he said if a person was suffering from anxiety, it also fell in the broader definition of psychiatric disorder.
Thus, he was kept in the said hospital for an assessment. The report said a private ambulance was used to transport him on July 19 before the court.
Analyses of the close circuit television footage revealed he was seen fit in the hospital premises without any support. However, disembarking of the UTP in the court on a stretcher showed that he created a pre-planned/pre-meditated drama of illness to seek the court’s sympathy. His act was unwarranted, proved to be fabricated and belied by footage.
His frequent use of a cell phone on the premises of the hospital compound and free movement showed that policemen of the hospital facilitated him and SSP had suspended delinquent officials.
He was also provided with the facility of an air conditioner installed after his first time admission on Aug 28. The inquiry concluded “as far as the stay of UTP in the hospital, the same was not warranted as is being reflected by the medical record of the UTP. Hence, the MS managed the stay/admission of the UTP”.
Published in Dawn, October 3rd, 2025
