1

IN THE LAHORE HIGH COURT LAHORE.

W.P No__________________/2020 MIR SHAKIL UR RAHMAN S/o Mir Khalil-ur-Rahman Resident of House No. 8-H, M.A. Johar Town, Lahore.

(Presently confined in District / Camp Jail, Lahore). …………Petitioner

VERSUS

1. THE CHAIRMAN National Accountability Bureau NAB Headquarters

G-5/2, Attaturk Avenue, Islamabad.

2. DIRECTOR GENERAL National Accountability Bureau NAB Complex, Thokhar Niaz Baig Multan Road, Lahore.

3. MUHAMMAD ABID HUSSAIN Assistant Director/Investigation Officer National Accountability Bureau NAB Complex, Thokhar Niaz Baig, Lahore.

…………Respondents

WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 199 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF THE ISLAMIC REPUBLIC OF PAKISTAN 1973.

Respectfully Sheweth:-

1. That the Petitioner is the Editor-in-Chief of the Jang/Geo Group,

the oldest, largest and the most popular media group in Pakistan

which has always enjoyed an enviable repute as true professional

committed to excellence. It is known for its services and

contribution for democracy, rule of law, independence of

judiciary, human rights and good governance.

2

2. That the political history of Pakistan is replete with the instances

of victimization of the Jang/ Geo Group for a number of times for

its cause and the same had suffered a lot during all regimes but it

never subdued before the tyranny and might of the state and

throughout stood the test of time.

3. That for more than 45 years, the Petitioner has been working as a

journalist and in the news business in Pakistan; the Petitioner

launched various newspapers, magazines and TV channels setting

up a new benchmark for journalism nationally and

internationally.

4. That over the last 60 years, Jang Group’s insistence on pursuing an

independent media policy has repeatedly put the Jang Group at

odds with unhappy governments, governments that wanted a

compliant media willing to render favorable media coverage so

that the sovereign people of Pakistan would not be able to assess

their lack of performance and shortcomings.

5. That the result of the Jang/Geo Group’s insistence on pursuing an

independent media policy has meant that the Daily Jang

newspaper was and continues to remain the most popular Urdu

newspaper in Pakistan and abroad and its English newspaper, The

News International, has remained one of the leading newspapers

in the country, while Geo News was and continues to be the most

credible and most popular news channel in the country.

6. That by way of background, it is pertinent to state that when NAB

and NAB personnel were criticized, Geo News deemed it in public

interest to safeguard the sanctity and credibility of the

accountability process, to broadcast such news and to question

the authenticity of any such content with the serious allegations

contained in it should not be presumed blindly.

3

7. That the above infuriated both NAB officials as well as the

incumbent government and immediately thereafter Geo News

management, its anchors, especially the anchor and producer of

the program, “Aaj Shahzaib Khanzada Ke Saath”, and particularly,

the Petitioner, started facing threats that NAB would get the

Pakistan Electronic Media Regulatory Authority (hereinafter

‘PEMRA’) to ban the program.

8. That it was in this background, that on the behest of NAB, PEMRA

started issuing multiple notices to Geo News and its anchors and

started imposing fines.

9. That finally, Geo had no option but to approach this Hon’ble Court

four months ago (WP No. 61353/2019) just to seek a direction

by the Hon’ble Court to PEMRA “not to treat NAB as a state

institution”, as NAB was an investigating body just like the Federal

Investigation Agency. To the best of the Petitioner’s knowledge,

PEMRA has still to file a reply in that petition.

10. That without prejudice to the above, even otherwise, an unholy

collaboration of NAB and the incumbent government led to a

collapse in business confidence and imprisonment of almost all

the opposition leadership, including, inter alia, former President

Mr. Asif Ali Zardari and former Prime Ministers Mr. Muhammad

Nawaz Sharif and Mr. Shahid Khaqan Abbasi.

11. That the emergence of the respondent bureau, its credibility,

partiality and use for political engineering has throughout been a

matter of heated debate not only by all the political parties but

also by human rights organizations and intelligentsia both at

national and international level. It is pertinent to mention here

that the conduct of the respondent bureau and the manner of use

of authority by its officials have also been judicially noticed by the

4

superior courts of this country in many cases.

12. That on account of instances of excessive and misuse of its

process and unjustified harassment by the officials of the

respondent bureau, the business community and the bureaucracy

were constrained to lobby with the powers-that-be and had

brought to the notice, amongst others, of the Honourable Prime

Minister and other high officials their deep concerns about the

state of the economy.

13. That it was in the above context that the incumbent government

realized that NAB’s unchecked and daily harassment of private

citizens, businessmen and bureaucrats had completely damaged,

amongst other, business confidence and it was a major

impediment in the government’s plan to put the country on a path

on growth.

14. That it was thus that the government itself promulgated an

Ordinance on 28.12.2019 amending NAO 1999, seeking to protect

private citizens, businessmen and bureaucrats who had become

virtually dysfunctional. That in a way is a kind of an admission by

the government that NAB had gone out of control and it needed to

be reined in at least to the extent of businessman/bureaucracy.

15. That on 28.02.2020, the Deputy Director (Coord), Complaint

Verification Cell, summoned the Petitioner vide Notice No.

1(33)/HQ/CV/769/20/NH-DD/NAB-L to appear at NAB’s Lahore

Office on 05.03.2020 along with “complete record” of a matter

which had been occasioned 34 years ago and was in the stage of

‘Complaint Verification’. In fact, as evident from the Notice itself, it

has been issued by the Complaint Verification Cell, NAB and was

titled ‘Subject Complaint Verification is under process with this

Bureau’.

5

16. In fact, the Notice was received on 03.03.2020, whereas, as stated

above, it required the Petitioner’s appearance on 05.03.2020.

Despite the inadequacy thereof, the Petitioner, as a law-abiding

citizen, appeared in the office of NAB at Lahore. On the said date,

the Petitioner took with him some notes, mainly from his memory

of 34 years ago and material he could lay his hands on, and

offered it to the officials of NAB. The Petitioner also stated that it

might be more convenient if they issued him a specific

questionnaire. They refused to do so, however, stating that he

could make out the questions from their conversations and record

them for himself. These came to about thirteen (13) questions

which the Petitioner wrote in his own hand, whilst noting verbal

confirmation of the same, from the concerned NAB officials. In the

hope of facilitating an end to this unwarranted action, he had

earlier hurriedly typed out a response to the ‘non-notice’,

‘non-questionnaire’, which he now sought to submit to the NAB

officials concerned, but they were not willing to take it from him

although they received a copy after he had signed it in their

presence and added a caveat in his hand under it. (This too

however, was seized by NAB when all documents with him were

retained by NAB on 12.03.2020, at the time of his unlawful arrest).

Copy of NAB Notice dated 28.02.2020 appended herewith as

Annexure A.

17. That on 10.03.2020, the Petitioner received another Notice along

with certain queries from NAB, with summons and directions to

appear before the NAB officials again on 12.03.2020.

18. That since the proceedings were yet meant only to verify the

complaint and had not reached the stage where the Petitioner

could be put on notice, the Petitioner (or any reasonable person

for that matter) could not be expected to apprehend that he would

6

be arrested at such a preliminary stage of the probe. He thus

arrived at the NAB office in Lahore on 12.03.2020, carrying with

him personal documents, including the tentative drafts he had

made for his own use and review before finalizing for

submissions.

19. That despite the extreme paucity of time granted, the Petitioner

began an exercise to address the queries and drafting of replies

thereto. He could obviously not complete this process in the short

period granted, as would be evident from the draft

replies/submissions themselves (which are all presently in the

possession of NAB). It can be ascertained from the documents in

NAB’s possession, that the ‘replies’ to the queries contained

therein, were for the personal use of the Petitioner himself, were

of a tentative draft nature, and, in no case final and ready for

submission to NAB.

20. That what seems obvious to the Petitioner in hindsight is that

NAB was not interested in any question or answer as can be

verified by video recording which are in NAB’s possession and

were recorded as per NAB SOPs during inquiry and investigation

at NAB premises, but while the Petitioner was in the NAB

premises at Lahore - out of good faith and cooperating with NAB -

the officials told him that he had been put under arrest pursuant

to a Warrant of Arrest issued by Respondent No. 1 in Islamabad at

the very same time and day. The Petitioner was also deprived,

inter alia, of three cellphones, credit cards, hand bag which were

in his personal car which was not in NAB premises along with

original private papers etc, the preliminary and incomplete draft

replies as well as the record he took with him including

photocopies. Copies of Ground of Arrest and Warrant of Arrest

dated 12.03.2020 appended herewith as Annexure B,C.

7

21. That as evident from the foregoing, the arrest of the Petitioner on

12.03.2020 at the Complaint Verification Stage, was in blatant

violation, inter alia, of the SOP as well as recent pronouncements

of the Superior Courts. In addition, the Petitioner sought to

exercise his right to meeting with his counsel/advocate and family

members but he was denied the right. He was made to sign off on

certain documents, in which he made clear his unwillingness to

sign as can be verified on arrest warrant. He has no copies nor

exact recall of documents or its contents, due to untold stress

caused on being informed, that had been unduly arrested.

22. That as per grounds of arrest, the prosecution story precisely was

that the petitioner in connivance with officers/officials of LDA,

Ex-Chief Minister Mian Muhammad Nawaz Sharif and others

illegally got exempted / allotted 54 plots measuring 1-Kanal each

situated at Canal Bank, H-Block, M.A Johar Town, Lahore in sheer

violation of provisions of Exemption Policy of 1986 formulated for

M.A. Johar Town, Lahore etc against 180 Kanals of land

purportedly acquired in Mouza Niaz Baig Lahore; Petitioner got

allotted / exempted these plots in sheer violation of Exemption

Policy and illegally obtained all the plots of 1-Kanal each despite

the fact that as per Exemption Policy maximum 15 plots of

1-Kanal denomination could be exempted/allotted but accused

being in league with co-accused illegally got exempted 54 plots

measuring 1-kanal each including 2 streets and in a compact block

at prime location on Canal; the petitioner in connivance with

other co-accused persons illegally got included 2 streets which

were a thorough fare/state land in illegally exempted plots

against the rules/regulation and law; the land so acquired was

situated in 3 different chunks / pockets but in violation of rules a

compact block of land was obtained/ allotted to the petitioner; in

order to cover himself, the petitioner in connivance with other

8

co-accused persons transferred the illegally exempted plots in the

name of his wife as well as minor children and then got

transferred the same in his name; furthermore, the petitioner in

connivance with co-accused persons got allotted excess land at

throw away price, therefore, petitioner obtained illegal pecuniary

advantages through illegal means.

23. That the petitioner was produced before the Learned

Accountability Court and his physical custody was remanded to

the inquiry officer for a period of 45 days where after, he was sent

to judicial lock up vide order dated 28-04-2020. Copies of the

application for physical remand alongwith orders are attached

herewith as Annexure-D/D-3.

24. That through the instant petition the petitioner seeks post arrest

bail in the above said Inquiry inter alia on the following:-

GROUNDS

a. That the assumption of jurisdiction by the respondent bureau in the

instant case is prompted by malafide intention and considerations

extraneous to law.

b. That as per provisions of Section 19 of the NAO 1999, the respondent

bureau or its officials have the authority to issue a call up notice only

and after an order of authorization of inquiry by the competent

authority and no one may be summoned or required to enter personal

appearance before such an order. Admittedly, there was no order of

authorization of inquiry when the petitioner was served with call up

notices dated 28-02-2020 and 10-03-2020. Hence, the entire

proceedings were illegal, without lawful authority and void ab-initio.

c. That as per standard operating procedures (SOP) issued by the office of

9

respondent Chairman and as per practice, the decision as to referring a

case for an inquiry or otherwise is invariably taken first by the Regional

Boards of the Bureau and thereafter the same is placed before the

Executive Board for its consideration in due course. This is now a

matter of public knowledge that the Executive Board Meetings and

decisions taken therein are made public through Media. There is

nothing on record to show that the matter of authorization of inquiry

against the petitioner was ever placed in agenda of any Regional Board

Meeting or Executive Board.

d. That in addition to the above SOP in vogue since long, the proceedings

initiated against the petitioner were also in blatant violation of an SOP

issued in the recent past i.e. 08-10-2019 prescribing procedure for

summoning and appearance mandating i.e.:-

Without Summoning:- a. Notice, covering the details and reasons for alleging the person in

the case, will be issued for provision of written reply.

b. After receipt of reply, if the same is found unsatisfactory or needs further explanation a questionnaire will be delivered.

c. The DG Regional NAB will examine the reply of each question and if found unsatisfactory.

Summoning:-

The businessman will be summoned for personal appearance as per law and SOP

(Copy of NAB Directive/Policy Guidelines dated 08.10.2019

appended herewith as Annexure-E).

e. That the manner of commencing or initiating proceedings against the

petitioner smacks volumes of malafide and is violative of the

fundamental right of equal protection of law and treatment in

accordance with law guaranteed by Article 4 and 25 of the Constitution

10

of Islamic Republic of Pakistan 1973.

f. That the order for authorization of inquiry and issuance of warrant of

arrest were passed by the respondent chairman on the same day i.e.

12-03-2020 at Islamabad when the petitioner was still being

interrogated at Lahore where none of his responses or multiple

documents of evidence that petitioner had brought to clear his name,

had been read or given any consideration as can be verified by video

recording which are in NABs possession. In the peculiar circumstances,

it may be safely assumed that both the orders for authorization of

inquiry and issuance of warrant of arrest have already been passed

before the appearance of the petitioner on that date.

g. That the above chronology of events makes it manifestly clear that

issuance of call up notices and interrogation of the petitioner was just

an eye wash and the inquiry officer was proceeding in the matter with

predisposed mind to implicate the petitioner by any means.

h. That the authorization of inquiry at Islamabad by the respondent

Chairman on the very date of appearance of the petitioner before

inquiry officer at Lahore and that too at the stage of complaint

verification also goes a long way to expose the malafide ex-facie as

petitioner was denied of his valuable right of due process by way of an

adequate opportunity and sufficient time to vindicate his position.

Indeed, in the peculiar circumstances, petitioner was condemned

unheard.

i. That the right to fair investigation has been elevated to the status of

fundamental right through insertion of Article 10-A in the Constitution

vide 18th Amendment. This is since settled law that fair trial is mirage

and illusion without fair investigation. It is needless to mention here

that law abhors the tendency of investigation with predisposed mind.

The mode and manner of commencing the proceedings against the

11

petitioner clearly demonstrate that the petitioner has been denied his

valuable fundamental rights.

j. That the impartiality, transparency and confidentiality of the inquiry

proceedings are the minimum standard norms universally, however,

even these standard norms were not adhered to in this case as the

distorted account of conversation during interrogation used to be aired

on media even prior to the end of interrogation sessions. This fact alone

is sufficient to show that the real motive behind the proceedings by the

respondent bureau was the character assassination.

k. That the right of dignity and reputation have been guaranteed as

fundamental rights by the constitution of Islamic republic of Pakistan

1973, hence, leakage of any information and that too in distorted form

of proceedings at an inquiry stage to the rival T.V Channels and Media

Groups was in blatant violation of both constitutional guarantees and

statutory duties of the officials of respondent bureau.

l. That be that as it may, the authorization of inquiry on the day at

Islamabad when the petitioner had entered appearance before inquiry

officer at Lahore in response to a call up notice with the subject of

complaint verification and that too during the ongoing interrogation

sessions itself establishes that the order for authorization of inquiry has

been passed in undue and unholy haste.

m. That in any case, the manner of authorization of inquiry was in blatant

violation of the mandatory provisions of section 18 of the NAO 1999 for

want of sufficient material to form requisite opinion mandated by law.

n. That the sum total and crux of the so called complaint moved at the

behest of a business rival at the most alleged the exemption of plots etc

by the then Chief Minister and chairman LDA to the petitioner by misuse

of authority in violation of the exemption policy. Per section 9(a)(vi)

12

and its explanation as added through (Second Amendment Ordinance

No. XXVII of 2019) dated 28-12-2019, the complaint did not attract

mischief of an offence of Misuse of Authority for want of any evidence as

to any gain in lieu of alleged misuse of authority. In this view of the

matter, the respondent Chairman was not competent to proceed in the

matter and pass an order for authorization of inquiry.

o. That even otherwise, the respondent chairman was not competent to

take cognizance upon the complaint as the petitioner did not fall within

the definition of person as prescribed vide 27th amendment ordinance

dated 28-12-2019.

p. That there is no cavil to the proposition regarding jurisdiction of the

respondent Chairman to refer a matter for inquiry in a case of

corruption and corrupt practices, however, the said jurisdiction or

discretion is not absolute and unfettered, rather, the same is structured

one and mandated to be exercised only upon availability of reasonable

grounds to suspect which were badly missing in this case. Hence, the

order of inquiry in this case has been passed in an arbitrary, capricious

and whimsical fashion.

q. That on the face of the complaint, the matter revolved around private

individuals or the same at the most may be stretched to the extent of a

matter between private individuals and Lahore Development Authority,

the said institution is a creation of a special law which is a complete

code unto itself and prescribes a comprehensive and exhaustive

mechanism as to the matters of land use, master plan etc, the said law

has been given overriding effect by the legislature in its own wisdom,

hence, the respondent chairman was not competent and did not have

any jurisdiction to proceed in the matter.

r. That the assumption of jurisdiction by respondent bureau despite

applicability of LDA Act having overriding effect and being special law

13

was also violative of Article 4 and 25 of the Constitution as well as the

rule of law enunciated by the Hon,ble Supreme Court of Pakistan in Syed

Mushahid Case 2017 SCMR 1218.

s. That admittedly, the petitioner entered appearance as and when

required, he extended full cooperation and furnished whatever

information was sought and was available, hence, issuance of warrant of

arrest was totally unjustified, uncalled for and does not stand the test of

section 24-A of the General Clauses Act.

t. That the mode, manner and juncture of arrest also speaks for itself as

the petitioner was arrested on the very day of authorization of inquiry

in a case based on documentary evidence comprising of public record

already in possession of the LDA or the NAB.

u. That the apprehension of abscondence of the petitioner was also ill

founded in view of his track record and credentials of cooperation and

personal appearance in response to call up notices. Indeed, this so called

apprehension was a lame excuse to forge a ground to arrest the

petitioner.

v. That as submitted earlier, the case being based upon documentary

evidence relating to more than three decades old and public record,

there remains no substance in the apprehension of chance of any

tempering.

w. That the arrest of the petitioner was not only in clear violation of the

fundamental rights of the petitioner as to liberty, life, dignity, reputation

guaranteed by the Constitution but also in contravention of the law

enunciated by the Hon,ble Supreme Court of Pakistan from time to time

such as Sawar Case 2014 SCMR 1762 and Mst Sughra Bibi Case PLD

2018 SC 595.

14

x. That the arrangement of making a photograph of the petitioner behind

the bars of NAB judicial lockup and its leakage to media is yet another

factor to expose the bonafide and real intent behind the proceedings by

the respondent bureau.

y. That so far as the merit of the case is concerned, the only role of the

petitioner is that he moved an application before the Lahore

Development Authority on behalf the original owners for provision of

interim development; no prayer for grant of exemption or any excess

land was mentioned therein, it is neither the case of the prosecution nor

is it an offence under any law to move an application of the above

nature, rather, the petitioner was well within his legal rights to move

the said application.

z. That the request for provision of interim development made in the

above said application was declined, rather, the competent authority of

LDA issued letter dated 22-07-1986 whereby certain terms and

conditions were intimated for exemption of plots, payment of price of

excess land and development charges etc; the said terms and conditions

were accepted and the requisite dues were paid accordingly. In this

view of these circumstances, this was purely a civil transaction and

contract between the land owners and the LDA which does not make

out any offence under any law.

aa. That admittedly, none of the parties to contract i.e. land owners and the

LDA have ever disputed or objected to the said contract which is still

intact after lapse of 34 years, hence, there was no justification available

to the respondent bureau to poke its nose in the instant matter.

bb. That the matter of civil transaction has been given a criminal

complexion with the malafide intention to bring the weight of the

criminal law upon the shoulders of the petitioner with malafide

intention and settle the score for fair reporting as to the performance of

15

the respondent bureau.

cc. That the petitioner had neither any authority nor any role in the matter

of determination of entitlement of a number of exempted plots or

location and otherwise nor is there an iota of evidence to attract the

mischief of any act or omission on his part with in the ambit of

corruption and corrupt practice.

dd. That even otherwise, the allegation that as per exemption policy the

land owners were entitled to 15 Plots of 1-Kanal whereas rest of the

entitlement was to be adjusted in form of Plots of smaller size is

concerned, the same is misconceived because as per Clause (c) read

with sub clause 11 of the Exemption Policy each owner was entitled to

15 Plots of 1-Kanal subject to rider of 30% exemption. Admittedly, the

applicants/ owners were 7 and they were exempted 54 Plots of 1-Kanal

each against their holding of 180-Kanals 18-Marlas which neither

violates clause (c) nor its sub clause 11.

ee. That the allegation of approval by the Chief Minister or the LDA Officials

for exemption of 54 Plots against entitlement of 15 Plots is an

afterthought because as per the summary shown to the petitioner

during investigation, no relaxation whatsoever was sought or approved

as regards the number of plots. Rather, as per the file of the LDA shown

to the petitioner during inquiry, the above said application of the land

owners was processed by various sections and directorates of the LDA

and the entitlement of number of plots was worked out in due course

and there was nothing on record to suggest that there was any

reservation by anyone who so ever as to the number of plots or

relaxation of any rule or exemption policy was required in this regard.

ff. That the allegation that the land owned by the land owners was situated

in three different chunks / pockets but in violation of clause (f) of

exemption policy, a compact block of land was allotted is also

16

misconceived as the said clause was permissive and not mandatory as

held by an Hon,ble Division Bench of this Hon,ble Court in 2019 YLR

1488.

gg. That it is highly unjustified at this stage of the case to attribute the

petitioner any guilty intent just on account of use of words in the

summary i.e. “this proposal may be treated as a special case not to be

quoted as a precedent”. Admittedly, during the course of inquiry and

even after confrontation with the author of the summary namely the

then Director General LDA, no evidence worth name had come on

record to suggest any malafide as context of use of said words.

hh. That as per the summary approved by the then Chief Minister and LDA

chairman confronted to the petitioner during inquiry, the competent

authority has sought approval in respect of adjustment of total

entitlement at Canal after due application of mind as the same does find

mention of equal good location of the remaining land i.e. quite close to

the proposed Civic Center and --- near the proposed Commercial Center.

ii. That even otherwise, the allotment / exemption in form of compact

block was not any favour or undue benefit as the value of the smaller

size plots have had the potential of more appreciation on account of

peculiar location i.e. quite close to the proposed Civic Center and near

the proposed Commercial Center.

jj. That even otherwise, admittedly 33-Kanal land was situated on Canal

whereas the remaining land was just 300 meters away, in this peculiar

background, it is not possible to allege at this tentative stage that the

remaining land did not fell within the ambit and scope of words “on or

around”.

kk. That the allegation of allocation of streets / excess land was illegal or

amounted to an undue benefit is also misconceived and false as the

17

same was in lieu of reserve price and the original owners never sought

the said area, rather, the LDA Authorities in their own wisdom thought

it fit and appropriate to save expenditure on development of roads as

also to raise its revenue.

ll. That the above transaction had taken place 34 years ago when phase-II

of M.A Johar Town was at an embryonic and preliminary planning stage

and no development work had started even years thereafter, there is no

evidence worth name on record to show no change in the original plan

or master plan of Phase-II throughout, in any case, no criminality may

be ascribed to the petitioner for any changes in the master plan or

otherwise by the LDA for its own convenience. Photocopies of the

relevant documents are attached herewith as Annexure-F.

mm. That in view of overwhelming documentary evidence available on

record as to payment of reserve price in due course, an allegation of

undue benefit or illegal advantage is both false and farce. Copies of

relevant documents are attached herewith as Annexure-G.

nn. That the requisite dues and price were paid as per rates of the rules and

policy at the relevant time, hence, the allegation of nonpayment of dues

or price at the market rate is also ill founded as the SOPs or Rules made

applicable much after the transaction of this case cannot be applied

retrospectively.

oo. That the allegations against the petitioner of collusion and connivance

with the then Chief Minister or LDA Officials are vague, bald, and

general in nature and the same is not supported by any evidence worth

name on record. Indeed, the prosecution story proceeds upon surmises

and conjectures.

pp. That on the face of the orders granting or extending physical remand of

the petitioner, the question of guilt, if any, requires further inquiry.

18

Hence, the petitioner is entitle to relief on this score alones.

qq. That notice be kindly taken of the fact that none of the co-accused

officials has been arrested in this case and only the petitioner was

arrested notwithstanding the fact that nothing was to be recovered from

him. Hence, the petitioner is also entitled to bail at the anvil of

fundamental right of equality before law and consistency.

rr. That the petitioner was in no position to give himself benefit; there is no

record or evidence to prove that he was involved in conspiring to get

the benefit; petitioner may not be held in jail while the person who is

accused of misuse of authority, Mian Muhammad Nawaz Sharif, is not

even in the jurisdiction of the investigating authority and may not be for

a long time if at all and the investigating agency is not even in position

to investigate Mian Muhammad Nawaz Sharif; in the peculiar

circumstances, no reference may be filed in near future, hence, the

petitioner may not be detained in jail for an indefinite period.

ss. That the case is still at an initial stage of inquiry which is complete qua

him, nothing is to be recovered from the petitioner, hence, his further

incarceration shall not serve any ends of justice, rather, same would

tantamount to punishment before trial.

tt. That presumption of innocence before a finding of guilt by a court of

competent jurisdiction is the bedrock of the principles of safe

administration of criminal justice system, hence, further detention of

the petitioner would be violative of his above cherished right

guaranteed as fundamental one by the constitution of Islamic republic

of Pakistan.

uu. That the petitioner is also entitled to release on bail on the principle of

Syed Mushahid Case 2017 SCMR 1218 which has been followed by this

Hon,ble Court in more than one matters of bail in NAB cases such as

19

Yousaf Abbas Sharif and Syed Alamdar Hussain Shah.

vv. That the concept of bail dates back to the time of Plato who tried to

create a bond for the release of Socrates, the same kept on evolving in

various parts of the world with the passage of time and series of laws

since 16th century ultimately culminated into inclusion in the

international covenants on Civil and Political rights, same form part of

the American Constitution through 8th amendment and dates back to

1628 in England, even under local jurisdiction, rule has been held to be

bail not jail except in exceptional circumstances which are badly missing

in this case.

ww. That even otherwise, bail may not be withheld as punishment and law

favors it as there is no legal or moral compulsion to keep people in jail

and because ultimate conviction and incarceration of a guilty person can

repair the wrong caused by a mistaken interim relief of bail but no

satisfactory reparation can be offered to innocent person for his

unjustified incarceration at any stage of the case albeit his acquittal in

the long run as per the law enunciated by the Hon,ble Supreme Court

the way back in 1972 in Manzoor and four others (PLD 1972 SC 81)

This is relevant to submit here that the said view of the Hon,ble

Supreme Court of Pakistan has consistently been followed even in NAB

Cases PLD 2003 SC 668 and PLD 2018 SC 40 and has also the recent

view of this Hon,ble Court in Sabtain Khan, and Maryam Nawaz

Sharif Case.

xx. That even otherwise and without touching the merits of the case, the

petitioner is entitled to bail being an infirm man suffering from a

number of serious ailments including and not limited to hyper

ventilation, tinnitus, sleep apnea, increased PSA level and mixed density

of mass on left kidney. His London Consultant has advised transrectal

ultrasound scan and fusion biopsies of the prostate. CT Scan done at

20

Services hospital shows mixed density of mass in midpole of left kidney.

They have to now conduct MRI of Renal mass of kidney, MRI of Pelvis

with prostate index PIRADS to rule out prostate pathology to rise in

Serum PSA. National Hospital and Medical center has also advised that

Lesion of left Kidney and disease of prostate need special investigation

as both these lesions are life threatening. On account of the said ailment,

the petitioner requires specialized treatment in conducive environment

and his continues detention and custody is likely to have hazardous

effect and may prove to be lifer threating. It is relevant to mention here

that his health condition badly deteriorated while he was in custody of

NAB due to which NAB itself had to transfer the petitioner to hospital

for requisite treatment and he is still hospitalized. Copies of the relevant

documents of medical record are attached herewith as Annexure-H.

yy. That the mother of the petitioner is 94 years old, she is also suffering

from a number of serious ailments, unfortunately she lost her elder son

in the recent past while the petitioner was in custody, the said two

events of loss of one son and detention of the other have proved

devastating and triggering, her health condition is worsening day by

day, being the only son, the petitioner is also in dire need to be beside

her to attend and look after at this juncture of life. It is needless to

mention here that the petitioner had already suffered trauma and shock

of expiry of real brother and petitioner’s inability to be beside him

before death on account of his custody with NAB. Hence, the petitioner

is also entitled to relief on compassionate and humanitarian grounds.

Copy of medical certificate is attached herewith as Annexure-I.

zz. That the petitioner has no other adequate, efficacious and speedy remedy

except to invoke the constitutional jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Court.

21

PRAYER:-

In view of the above submissions, it is, therefore, most

respectfully prayed that this writ petition may kindly be accepted and

the petitioner be admitted to bail after arrest in Inquiry Authorization

No.1(9)HQ/2173/NAB-L dated 12-03-2020 in the interest of justice.

Any other relief which this Hon’ble Court deems fit and

appropriate may also be granted to the Petitioner.

Petitioner/In Jail Through

[Muhammad Amjad Pervaiz] Advocate

Supreme Court of Pakistan CC. No. P-LH-13490

MUHAMMAD AOURANGZAIB CHAUDHARY MUHAMMAD NAWAZ Advocate High Court Advocate High Court PLH-20757 P-NW-18294

Office No. 2, Ground Floor SAF Centre 8-Fane Road, Lahore

Dated:.05.2020

CERTIFICATE:

As per instructions, this is the first Petition to seek Bail After Arrest from this Honourable Court.

NOTE:-

Earlier the petitioner filed writ petition No.17809/2020

challenging his arrest which was dismissed vide order dated 07-04-2020.

ADVOCATE

22

IN THE LAHORE HIGH COURT, LAHORE

C.M. No._________/2020

IN

Writ Petition No.__________/2020

Mir Shakeel-ur-Rehman Vs. NAB etc.

APPLICATION UNDER SECTION 151 C.P.C FOR DISPENSATION

Respectfully Sheweth:-

1. That the petitioner has filed the accompanying petition in this

Hon’ble Court, in which no date of hearing has so far been fixed.

2. That presently certified copies of the Annexures are not available.

However uncertified but true copies of the same are being appended

for kind perusal of this Hon’ble court.

It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that without certified

copies of the annexures, the petition may very kindly be entertained,

in the interest of justice.

Petitioner/In Jail

Through

MUHAMMAD AMJAD PERVAIZ

Advocate Supreme Court

of Pakistan

C.C. No.P-LH-13490

23

IN THE LAHORE HIGH COURT, LAHORE

W.P.No.____________/2020

Mir Shakeel-ur-Rehman Versus

National Accountability Bureau etc

I N D E X

S.# DESCRIPTION OF DOCUMENTS DATE PAGES

1. Stamp Paper + Urgent Form

2. Writ Petition 11.05.2020 1-21

3. Annexure-A Copy of Call Up Notice 28-02-2020 22

4. Annexure-B Copy of Ground of Arrest 12-03-2020 23

5. Annexure-C Copy of Warrant of Arrest 12-03-2020 24

6. Annexure-D/D-3 Copies of Application for physical remand and orders

13-03-2020 28-04-2020

25-58

7. Annexure-E Copy of NAB Directive / Policy 08-10-2019 59

8. Annexure-F Copies of relevant documents 60-90

9. Annexure-G Copies of relevant documents 91-96

10. Annexure-H Copy of Medical Certificate 97-99

11. Annexure-I Copy of Medical Certificate of Mother of the Petitioner

100

12. Copy of Order passed in Writ Petition No.17809/2020 titled as Mir Shakeel-ur-Rehman Vs NAB etc

101-117

13. Dispensation Application 11-05-2020 118

14. Power of Attorney 119

Petitioner/In Jail Through

[Muhammad Amjad Pervaiz]

Advocate Supreme Court

of Pakistan C.C. NO. P-LH-13490

DATED:11.05.2020