Manend Team 
LAHORE, (MANEND NEWS): Three-member full
bench of Lahore High Court headed by Justice Ali Baqar Najafi and
comprising Justice Ms. Alia Neelum and Justice Syed Shehbaz Ali Rizvi
unanimously granted bail to Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz (PML-N)
President and Leader of the Opposition in National Assembly Mian
Muhammad Shehbaz Sharif in money laundering and assets beyond
means reference. The court has ordered release of Shehbaz Sharif
against submission of two surety bonds of Rs5 million each.
The bench has supported the decision of Justice Sardar Muhammad
Sarfaraz Dogar granting bail to Shehbaz Sharif; meanwhile the bench
has opposed the decision of Justice Asjad Jawaid Ghural rejecting bail
application of Shehbaz Sharif. Overall four judges have approved bail
application of Shehbaz Sharif and one judge has rejected the bail
application of Shehbaz Sharif.
Shehbaz Sharif’s counsels Senator Chaudhry Azam Nazir Tarar
Advocate and Muhammad Amjad Parvez Advocate had completed their
arguments on Wednesday; meanwhile NAB Prosecutor Syed Faisal
Raza Bukhari completed arguments on Thursday after which the bench
announced the verdict approving the bail application of Shehbaz Sharif
unanimously.
Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz (PML-N) Punjab President and member
National Assembly Rana Sanaullah Khan, PML-N Spokesperson
Marriyum Aurangzeb, PML-N Lahore President and Member Punjab
Assembly Malik Muhammad Saiful Mulook Khokhar, Khawaja Imran
Nazeer, Azma Zahid Bukhari, Malik Shakeel Awan, Ataullah Tarar and
other PML-N leaders were also present on the occasion of the hearing
in court.
At the onset of the hearing, the court asked the NAB prosecutor to
present his arguments in the case. However, it opposed the arguments
given by Shahbaz’s lawyer Azam Nazeer Tarar.
“Yesterday, Shahbaz Sharif’s lawyers did not see that the bail was
rejected after approval,” said NAB’s lawyer, at which Tarar objected.
To this, the court also told Tarar that it had issued certain directions to
him. Shahbaz’s lawyer told the court that if NAB had objections, it can
issue a contempt notice to him.
Seeing the verbal scuffle between them, the bench warned that it
would adjourn the hearing if both lawyers continued. Tarar then took a
back seat and the court allowed the NAB lawyer to continue with his
arguments.
The NAB prosecutor told the bench that Shahbaz’s five sons and
daughter are absconding. “Suleman Shehbaz, Nusrat Shahbaz, Rabia
Imran, Haroon Yousuf, Syed Tahir Naqvi and Ali Hamid are
absconding,” said NAB’s lawyer Faisal Raza Bukhari.
Bukhari told the court that the high court had instructed Nusrat
Shehbaz to be part of the case via her lawyer. He added that NAB does
not oppose the move.
The prosecutor then told the court that NAB had send call-up notices
to the accused in the case, but no received response.
Bukhari told the bench that in 1990, Shehbaz had showed assets of
Rs2.1 million and in 1998 they had risen to Rs10.48 million. He then
claimed that from 2010-2018 the Model Town residence of Shehbaz
was turned into a camp office for the chief minister.
Bukhari said that the opposition leader showed assets of Rs7.32 billion
and all the assets were gained after 2005.
The NAB prosecutor claimed that 23 telegraphic transfers (TTs) were
made to Hamza Shahbaz’s account. He added that Rabia and Javeria
had received telegraphic transfers worth millions too.
The NAB lawyer further told the bench that they had found 12 TTs
worth Rs112 million in contractual employee Nasir Ahmed’s account.
“Rs 1.8 billion was transferred in Good Nature company’s account.
These companies were operated by Haroon Yousuf,” said the NAB
prosecutor.
He added that when Hamza would campaign, people would transfer
funds to PML-N’s account. He claimed that Hamza had brought a bullet
proof car from that money.
At this, the court asked NAB if they had added the bulletproof car
accusation to the charge sheet. The NAB lawyer then told the court
that it was not included in the charge sheet.
“Rs55 million was received as party funds. A cheque from a private
society had also come from the party funds,” said the NAB prosecutor.
The court then asked the NAB lawyer to tell them what details had
been after investigating the TTs.
At this, the NAB lawyer told the court that the TTs were sent by people
who said they had never left Pakistan. He added that some did not
even have a passport. “Which country were the TTs made from?”
asked the court.
The NAB lawyer told the court that the TTs were from Dubai and the
United Kingdom. “For what reason were these TTs sent,” the court
then asked.
“They have no response for this,” interjected Shahbaz’s counsel Amjad
Pervaiz upon the court’s questioning.
However, Bukhari told the court that their case was of assets beyond
means. “NAB has no response for why and what reason the money had
come,” said Shahbaz’s counsel at NAB’s response.
Hearing the response, Justice Baqar Najafi asked the NAB lawyer again
if the body had investigated the TTs and where they had come from.
“When we investigated them, people said they had not gone out of the
country,” Bukhari told the judge. He added that when they further
investigated the transactions, they found they had come from the UAE.
“There must be a source who can tell how and who sent the money,”
the court then asked the NAB lawyer.
“The money that used to come must have come for a reason, tell us,”
said Justice Najafi. He added that when an asset beyond means case is
registered, NAB looks at the illegal ways through which money was
transferred.
NAB Prosecutor Syed Faisal Raza Bukhari argued that Shehbaz Sharif
with the help of his family members was used to receive TTs in his
account and he has also committed money laundering so Shehbaz
Sharif did not deserve bail. Upon this Justice Ali Baqar Najafi inquired
from NAB prosecutor that if the money was coming in Model Town
then what was the source of this money and from this money comes
from.
On this point the counsels of Shehbaz Sharif informed the court that
the NAB in whole reference it did not wrote that from where this
money comes. The bench observed that if there is no allegation of
misuse of powers on Shehbaz Sharif then how NAB could term it as
assets beyond means of sources. The NAB prosecutor could not satisfy
the bench through his arguments after which the bench unanimously
approved the bail of Shehbaz Sharif.
It is worth mentioning here that Shehbaz Sharif’s counsels had
completed their arguments on his post-arrest bail order on
Wednesday. The counsels cited judgments wherein accused were
granted relief in case of judges giving split decisions.
The case pertaining to Shehbaz Sharif’s bail plea was earlier heard by
a division bench headed by Justice Sardar Muhammad Sarfraz Dogar.
Initially, the bail was allowed but later the other member of the bench,
Justice Asjad Javed Ghural, denied signing the bail order and gave a
dissenting note. The matter was later sent to LHC Chief Justice
Muhammad Qasim Khan who then constituted a three-member bench
to hear the matter.
As proceedings commenced on Wednesday, the bench asked
Shehbaz’s counsels Senator Chaudhry Azam Nazir Tarar and
Muhammad Amjad Pervez Advocate to begin arguing the facts of the
case.
Replying to the judges’ request, Shehbaz’s counsels argued that they
do not want to take the case back to where it began from.
However, Justice Najafi responded that the bench was not aware of
the case, asking the counsels how they expected the bench to reach a
verdict without knowing it.
While presenting his arguments, Advocate Amjad Pervez contended
that the Supreme Court had in one of its judgment’s maintained that
the accused could not be deprived of the right of bail if the division
bench had split decisions.
The judge who gave the dissenting note had not elaborated on the
points he believed the accused should not be granted bail, the counsel
maintained.
To this, National Accountability Bureau (NAB) special prosecutor Syed
Faisal Raza Bukhari argued that elaborating on the points did not
matter.
The bench further questioned the prosecutor about the total number of
prosecution witnesses and how many of thtem had their statements
recorded.
“There are a total of 110 prosecution witnesses, out of them nine have
been recorded. While the 10th was being recorded when the judges
were transferred,” the prosecutor replied.
Senator Azam Nazir Tarar and Amjad Pervez argued that NAB had
completely failed in establishing any connection of Shehbaz Sharif’s
with any sort of criminality. They implored that NAB does not have
even a single prosecution witness on record who testified against the
PML-N leader’s criminality.
They further argued that NAB connected assets belonging to members
of Shehbaz Sharif’s family with him, claiming that these assets were
under his control though they were not. They argued that all family
members were independent and had control on their assets.
“This case is about Rs7 billion and NAB claims that Shehbaz Sharif
could not answer for Rs27 billion, while the truth is that Sharif had
declared these in the FBR, ECP and other records,” the counsels
stated.
The PML-N president’s lawyers further asserted that, “NAB is not
accepting the income that Shehbaz earned from his agricultural land.
It is astonishing that NAB evaluated Rs1000 per year against one acre,
asking his clients how he earned the rest of the amount.”
At this, the NAB’s prosecutor argued that Shehbaz Sharif failed in
explaining the sources of his income.
“The case revolves around the hardships, delay in conclusion of trial,
the trial court’s report which it submitted in the Supreme Court of
Pakistan mentioning that it will take at-least one year to conclude the
trial, and around the ailments suffering from Shehbaz Sharif,” the
counsels further maintained, adding that NAB implicated Shehbaz in
forged assets beyond means and money laundering cases.
NAB’s prosecutor Bukhari argued that the statements of approver
Mushtaq were on record who told NAB that the money was whitened
through different transactions and TTs [telegraph transfers].
“The money was being transferred through TTs since 2005 but these
TTs were in full swing from 2008 to 2018 and billions of rupees were
made legal through illegal ways,” Bukhari stated. Later, the hearing
was adjourned till Thursday.
