SC unhappy with NAB for not challenging bails

islamabad — The Supreme Court on Monday expressed displeasure over the National Accountability Bureau (NAB) not challenging the high court’s order granting bail to some accused in the Double Shah fraud case and decided to hear identical petitions in this regard after three weeks.

A two-member SC bench comprising Justice Azmat Saeed and Justice Sajjad Ali Shah heard the pleas filed by several accused seeking interim bails in the fraud case.

During the course of proceeding, Justice Azmat Saeed asked the NAB officials whether some accused had been granted bails in the case.

The NAB prosecutor apprised the bench that the high court had granted bail to some accused, who were involved in collecting amount of less than Rs1 million from the victims.

At this, the bench expressed its dismay observing as to why the high court orders were not challenged before the relevant forum.

Justice Azmat Saeed remarked that either all the accused should have been bailed out or no one.

The NAB prosecutor said the bureau as per policy picked up cases involving mega corruption.

Justice Sajjad Ali Shah asked whether the corruption of Rs120,000 was a mega corruption case. The NAB prosecutor said the bureau would file appeals against the high court orders granting bails to some accused. Observing that it would hear the cases along with appeals to be filed by NAB, the court adjourned the hearing for three weeks.

Meanwhile, the Supreme Court on

Monday adjourned hearing in bail pleas of the accused in case pertaining to Ashiana Iqbal Housing Scheme, till November 29.

A three-member bench headed by Justice Azmat Saeed heard the bail pleas filed by two accused Munir Zia and Imtiaz Haider in the housing scheme scandal.

Addressing the NAB prosecutor,

Justice Azmat Saeed asked, “What really is the case about?”

The prosecutor replied that the accused persons had caused a loss to the national exchequer through the Ashiana Iqbal Housing Scheme, adding that the contract of the scheme was awarded to a company named CASA despite someone else winning it during bid. —