Form No: HCJD/C-121

ORDER SHEET
IN THE LAHORE HIGH COURT, LAHORE.
JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT

W.P. No. 56733/2019

Maryam Nawaz Sharifi Vs. Chairman NAB etc.

Sr. No. of Date of order/ Order with signature of Judge, and that of parties or counsel, where
order/ Proceeding necessary.
Proceeding

31.10.2019 M/s Azam Nazeer Tarar, Muhammad Amjad

Pervaiz, Barrister Momin Malik, Shan Saeed
Ghuman, Khawar Ikram Bhatti, Muhammad
Aurangzeb, Muhammad Nawaz Chaudhry,
Muhammad Adil Chatha, Salman Sarwar Rao,
Sultan Mehmood Khan, Ch. Imtiaz Elahi and
Hafeez ur Rehman, Advocates for the petitioner.
M/s Jahanzeb Bharwana, Ch. Khaliq uz Zaman,
Addl. Prosecutors, Naeem Tariq Sanghera, Syed
Faisal Raza Bukhari, Ahsan Rasool Chatha,
Yasir Siddique Mughal, Arshad Qayyum and
Muhammad Ali Chatha, Special Prosecutors for
NAB with Usman Iftikhar, I.O./A.D., Aftab
Ahmed, Case Officer/Addl. Director and Zafar
Hussain Ahmed, Addl. A.G.

Through this Constitutional Petition under Article 199

of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973
petitioner seeks post arrest bail. She was served with
following grounds of arrest:-
“a That the accused is involved in the acts of corruption
and corrupt practices as defined under Section 9(a) of NAO,
1999 and schedule thereto and AML Act 2010 as she aided
and abetted co-accused persons namely Mian Muhammad
Nawaz Sharif and others in acquisition and laundering the
W.P. No. 56733/2019 2

funds which were disproportionate to the known sources of

income of accused Mian Muhammad Nawaz Sharif. The
accused Maryam Safdar is also a beneficiary of assets
disproportionate to known sources of income of the accused
persons.
b That the accused Mian Muhamad Nawaz Sharif
remained Finance Minister Punjab, CM Punjab and Prime
Minister of Pakistan. Accused Maryam Safdar being daughter
of accused Mian Muhammad Nawaz Sharif and being
Director/Chief Executive Officer/shareholder of Sugar Mill
namely M/S Chaudhry Sugar Mills Ltd. and M/S Shamim
Sugar Mills Ltd. at various times, actively aided, abetted and
facilitated in acquisition of two Sugar Mills namely M/S
Chaudhry Sugar Mills Ltd. and M/S Shamim Sugar Mills
Ltd. from the year 1992 to 2016 with the funds which are
disproportionate to their known sources of income. That the
accused Mian Muhammad Nawaz Sharif, Maryam Safdar
and other accused persons/shareholders of said Sugar Mills
could not account for the investments of over Rs. 2,000
millions in said companies.
c That the accused Maryam Safdar aided Mian
Muhammad Nawaz Sharif in acquisition of 11.527 Million
shares of M/S CSML worth Rs. 400 Million (approx.) in her
name which they cannot account for. That the said shares
were fraudulently shown to be transferred from foreign
nationals namely Saeed Saif Bin Jabar Al-Suweidi, Mr.
Sheikh Zaka Ud Din and Hani Ahmad Jamjoom.
d That accused Maryam Safdar aided and abetted
accused Mian Muhammad Nawaz Sharif, Yousaf Abbas and
others, by layering through false and fictitious transfer of 11
Million shares of CSML in the name of foreigner namely Mr.
Nasser Abdullah Hussain Lootah, in order to launder a
foreign remittances of US $ 4.8 Million (approx.) by falsely
representing it as consideration of 11 Million ordinary shares
shown to be transferred to Mr. Nasser Lootah. That the said
Mr. Nasser Abdullah Lootah was shown as shareholder in
the M/S CSML fictitiously as he had never acquired any
shares in the CSML while the funds of $4.8 Million originally
belonged to the said accused persons which had earlier been
placed in Dubai, the sources of said funds have also not been
explained so far.
e Accused Maryam Safdar in connivance with Mian
Muhammad Nawaz Sharif and other acquired M/S Shamim
Sugar Mills Ltd. for Rs. 1,200 M (approx.) while the said
accused persons had no sufficient/known sources of funds
to acquire M/S Shamim Sugar Mills Ltd.
f That the evidence collected so far reveals that the
accused committed offences as defined u/s 9 (a) of NAO,
1999 and also u/s 3 of AML Act. 2010, by way of aiding and
abetting in the commission of offences and also by acquiring
W.P. No. 56733/2019 3

obtaining illegal pecuniary benefits through corrupt,

dishonest and illegal means.
g That despite 2 x call up notices the accused has
neither provided the requisite record nor has offered any
plausible defence.”

2. Brief facts as presented by the National Accountability

Bureau (hereinafter to be called NAB) are that Financial
Monitoring Unit (hereinafter to be called as FMU) Govt. of
Pakistan vide its letter No. FMU/A&D/499/2018 dated
12.01.2018 forwarded a Suspicious Transaction Report
(hereinafter to be called as STR) and Currency Transaction
Report hereinafter to be called CTR to the Chairman NAB
regarding various suspicious transactions of huge amounts
in the account of M/s Chaudhry Sugar Mills Limited
(hereinafter to be called as M/S SCML), co-accused Mian
Muhammad Nawaz Sharif and the petitioner/Maryam
Nawaz and other employees/relatives and the co-accused
persons. The competent authority authorized inquiry No.
1(9)/HQ/2023/NAB-L on 14.11.2008 against the petitioner
and others on the allegation of commission of offences of
corruption and corrupt practices and money laundering as
defined under Section 9(a) of National Accountability
Ordinance, 1999 (hereinafter to be called as NAO, 1999)
read with Anti-Money Laundering Act, 2010 (hereinafter to
be called AMLA, 2010) and schedule thereto. According to
the NAB, STR/CTR were carried out in respect of 45
following bank accounts of M/S CSML:-
Organization Branch Account No. Title of Account
Habib Bank Chak No. 45 GB 6667100080303 Shamim Sugar
Limited Mills Pvt. Ltd.
Bank Al-Falah Gojra 1002801828 Choudhary Sugar
W.P. No. 56733/2019 4

Ltd. Mills Ltd.

National Bank of Main Branch - Choudhry Sugar
Pakistan Gojra Mills Ltd.
United Bank Gojra 101622 Choudhary Sugar
Mills Ltd.
United Bank Gojra 101622 Choudhary Sugar
Mills Ltd.
Bank Al-Falah Gojra 1600290004 Choudhary Sugar
Ltd. Mills Ltd.
Bank Al-Falah Gulberg, Lahore 0028-01037913 Choudhary Sugar
Ltd. Mills Ltd.
Bank Al-Falah Gulberg, Lahore 0028-02923650 Choudhary Sugar
Ltd. Mills Ltd.
Bank Al-Falah Gulberg, Lahore 1003565759 Choudhary Sugar
Ltd. Mills Ltd.
United Bank Gojra 40401016229 Choudhary Sugar
Mills Ltd.
NIB Bank Old Race Course 4173037 CSML Sugar
Road Branch, Division
Lahore
National Bank of Model Branch 22.6760-2 Choudhary Sugar
Pakistan Gulberg (Hub Mills Ltd.
Branch)
Allied Bank Ltd. Tehsil Road 10000327420043 Choudhary Sugar
Gojra, TT Singh Mills Ltd.
Habib Bank Ltd. Choudhry Sugar 10040003893203 Choudhary Sugar
Mills Chak No. Mills Ltd.
282/jb
Habib Bank Ltd. Choudhry Sugar 10040002156103 Choudhary Sugar
Mills Chak No. Mills Ltd.
282/jb
Habib Bank Choudhry 10040389203 Choudhary Sugar
Ltd. Sugar Mills Mills Ltd.
Chak No.
282/jb
Habib Bank Ltd. Choudhry Sugar 1004000389203 Choudhary Sugar
Mills Chak No. Mills Ltd.
282/jb
Habib Bank Ltd. Choudhry Sugar 10197900419303 Choudhary Sugar
Mills Chak No. Mills Ltd.
282/jb
Habib Bank Ltd. Choudhry Sugar 10040002158103 Choudhary Sugar
Mills Chak No. Mills Ltd.
282/jb
Habib Bank Ltd. Choudhry Sugar 1004002156103 Choudhary Sugar
Mills Chak No. Mills Ltd.
282/jb
Habib Bank Ltd. Choudhry Sugar 10000000000000 Imprest A/C Ch
W.P. No. 56733/2019 5

Mills Chak No. Sugar Mills

282/jb
Habib Bank Ltd. Choudhry Sugar 10040000000000 Imprest A/C Ch
Mills Chak No. Sugar Mills
282/jb
Habib Bank Ltd. Choudhry Sugar - Imprest A/C Ch
Mills Chak No. Sugar Mills
282/jb
Allied Bank Ltd. Tehsil Road 11150001 Choudhary Sugar
Gojra TT Sing Mills Ltd.
Habib Bank Ltd. Lahore 12420201055803 Choudhary Sugar
Corporate Mills Ltd.
Center
Habib Bank Lahore new 13150012144803 Choudhary Sugar
Limited Muslim Town Mills Ltd.
Bank Al-Falah Gujra 16002900004 Choudhary Sugar
Ltd. Mills Ltd.
Bank Al-Falah Gujra 16002900009 Choudhary Sugar
Ltd. Mills Ltd.
Habib Bank Ltd. Gojra New 1080020806503 Choudhary Sugar
Railway Road Mills Ltd
Distt. T.T. Singh
MCB Bank Ltd. New Garden 108001010028601 Choudhary Sugar
Town Lahore Mills Ltd
MCB Bank Ltd. Gojra Main 33403010000013 Choudhary Sugar
Mills Ltd
Faysal Bank Ltd. Gojra Branch, 2800070000409 Choudhary Sugar
Gojra Mills Ltd
Bank Al-Falah Gulerg, Lahore 00281003565760 Choudhary Sugar
Ltd. Mills Ltd
Allied Bank Ltd. Garden Town, 10000327420037 Choudhary Sugar
Lahore Mills Ltd
Habib Bank Ltd. Lahore New 10607900267703 Choudhary Sugar
Garden Town, Mills Ltd
Lahore
Habib Bank Ltd. Coudhary Sugar 100440002156103 Choudhary Sugar
Mill Chak No. Mills Ltd
282/jb
United Bank Ltd. Liberty Market, 96201123776 Choudhary Sugar
Lahotre Mills Ltd
Bank Al-Falah Ltd Gulberg, Lahore 1003565760 Choudhary Sugar
Mills Ltd
The Bank of Gojra 0079BTA010327000 Choudhary Sugar
Punjab Mills Ltd
Allied Bank Ltd. Bridge Colony, 10000327420050 Choudhary Sugar
Lahore Mills Ltd
Habib Bank Ltd. Pir Mahal 1747901254703 Choudhary Sugar
Mills Ltd
Habib Bank Ltd. Kot Samaba 9057900416003 Choudhary Sugar
W.P. No. 56733/2019 6

Main Bazar Mills Ltd

MCB Bank Ltd. Kot Samaba 868800041006967 Choudhary Sugar
Mills Ltd
Soneri Bank Ltd. Sheikho Sugar 2012906073 Choudhary Sugar
Mills Mills Ltd
Bank Al-Falah Gulberg, Lahore 10033553480 Choudhary Sugar
Ltd. Mills Ltd

The allegations against petitioner/Maryam Nawaz Sharif,

is that she was appointed as Director of M/S CSML in 1992
and continued untill 1997 and she also served as Chief
Executive Officer (CEO) of M/S CSML for the years 1995-96
by acquiring 864,000 ordinary shares which remained in her
name till 2008. However, from 2008 to 2010 she became the
major shareholder having over 12 Million Shares (47%
ownership), whereas co-accused Mian Muhammad Nawaz
Sharif, became the major shareholder in the company over
12 Million Shares (46% ownership) during the period 2014 to
2016 while he was the Prime Minister of Pakistan. The
petitioner allegedly in connivance with co-accused Mian
Muhammad Nawaz Sharif and Abbas Sharif, her uncle,
acquired M/S Shamim Sugar Mills (hereinafter to be called
as M/S SSML) in the year 2011 without explaining the origin
of funds. The petitioner allegedly in aid and abetment with
co-accused through illegal means, without disclosing the
sources/origin of the funds obtained funds worth US $ 4.8
million. In addition, aided and abetted in obtaining another
amount of Rs. 230 million from UAE in the form of foreign
payments for the ultimate benefit of herself and her co-
accused persons without disclosing the source. She thus
acquired assets worth Rs. 2000 million from the years 2008
W.P. No. 56733/2019 7

to 2018 through illegal means and money laundering by

concealing the origin and nature, whereas she remained
beneficiary of all such ill-gotten assets.
3. The petitioner was arrested on 08.08.2019 consequent
to the warrant of arrest issued by the Chairman NAB and
according to NAB during the physical remand she failed to
explain the sources of funds for investments of Rs. 260
million contributing to the sale price of Rs. 1200 million
shares, and admitted having acquired shares worth Rs. 440
million but again could not explain her sources. She was
also confronted with the Telegraph Transfers (TT) of US$ 4.8
million on 25.11.2010 received from UAE in the account of
co-accused Yousaf Abbas Sharif, which was transferred into
the account of M/S CSML when she was the major
shareholder, but she could not explain the sources of
transactions. Likewise, her both cousins namely, Yousaf
Abbas Sharif, and Abdul Aziz Abbas Sharif, received 12
payments of Rs. 230 million originated from exchange
companies based in UAE during the year 2013 and she being
the direct beneficiary of foreign transaction could not justify
it. According to the NAB, said co-accused said cousins of the
petitioner invested Rs. 260 million for acquiring M/S SSML
in the year 2011 increasing its worth to Rs. 1200 million
whereas, they only contributed Rs. 230 million from their
personal sources and the rest of the investment was not
explained. According to Form-A dated 31.12.2008 issued by
Securities & Exchange Commission of Pakistan (hereinafter
to be called as SECP) in respect of M/s CSML Sheikh Zaka
W.P. No. 56733/2019 8

Ud Din was holding 2,021,760, Saeed Saif Bin Jabar Al-

Suweidi, 9,409,090, and Hani Ahmed Jamjoon, 97,033
shares making them a total shares of 11,527,883. According
to the SECP report, these shares were transferred to the
petitioner on 21.05.2008 and the average price of share was
Rs.38.17 per share and the shares held by the family were
not enough to purchase the shares of above foreigners in the
company. According to the Federal Board of Revenue
(hereinafter to be called as FBR), record, the petitioner had
declared the income of Rs. 7,732,370/- between 1992 to
2008 whereas that of co-accused Mian Muhammad Nawaz
Sharif, between 1985 to 2008 was 15,640,600/- and that of
late Kalsoom Nawaz, of the said year was 6,075,454/- and
the amount required to purchase 11,527,883 shares was Rs.
440,019,294/-, therefore, they had the deficiency of funds of
Rs. 41,570,870/-.
4. According to the NAB, during the year 2010 co-
accused Yousaf Abbas Sharif, received a telegraphic Transfer
(TT) of US $ 4,88,000/- equivalent to PKR 417,472,100/- in
his account No. 02809616 maintained at Bank Al-Falah
Gulberg Brach, Lahore on 25.11.2010 from Naseer Lootah of
UAE as foreign investment in lieu of 11 million original
shares of M/S CSML transferred in his name. However,
Naseer Lootah, had denied having made any investment in
M/S CSML for purchase of shares and he stated that US $
4,885,000/- was invested by Sharif family in 2010 in his real
estate business in UAE which was returned to co-
accused/Yousaf Abbas Sharif through TT of US $ 4.8
W.P. No. 56733/2019 9

million. This amount of approximately 4.7 million was

transferred by Yousaf Abbas Sharif, into the account of M/S
CSML in Bank Al-Falah Gulberg Branch, Lahore and as
such the petitioner and her father, Mian Muhammad Nawaz
Sharif, the major shareholders had become the beneficiary of
unexplained proceeds. Yousaf Abbas Sharif was holder of
only 3% ownership and in one year he became the owner of
45% shares as the major shareholder in order to whiten
unaccounted funds received from UAE. During the year
2013, Yousaf Abbas Sharif, received 5 payments amounting
to Rs. 130 million without declaring the source of income or
investment in UAE in his account No. 0490162781006118
maintained at MCB Bank Branch New Garden Town, Lahore
which he further transferred to M/S CSML account No.
0108001010028601 at MCB Bank Branch New Garden
Town, Lahore. Likewise, in the year 2013, co-accused Abdul
Aziz Abbas Sharif, another cousin of the petitioner, received
7 payments from the exchange companies of UAE amounting
to Rs. 100 million in his personal account No.
516398571005976 maintained at MCB Bank Branch New
Garden Town, Lahore without any source of income or
investment in UAE from his another account No.
0490162781006118 transferred the amounts in M/s CSML
in Account No. 01080010110028601 both MCB Bank
Branch New Garden Town, Lahore.
5. In nutshell, according to the NAB, the evidence so far
collected revealed that petitioner with the co-accused Mian
Muhammad Nawaz Sharif, Yousaf Abbas Sharif and Abdul
W.P. No. 56733/2019 10

Aziz Abbas Sharif, and others with active aid, abetment and
assistance of each other have accumulated assets
disproportionate to their known sources of income in M/s
SSM in the year 2011 and in form of huge
investments/deposit of unexplained money in the bank
account of M/S CSML from year 2008 to 2018, thus the
assets acquired through illegal means by concealing the
origin and nature of aforesaid assets, and by creating
multiple layers of transactions in order to launder
unexplained funds, committed the offences as defined under
Anti-Money Laundering AML Act, 2010 read with Section
9(a)(xii) of NAO, 1999.
6. To fortify the prosecution case, it has been
emphasized in the report and parawise comments submitted
by the NAB that the party of petitioner family Pakistan
Muslim League (N) was sitting at the helm of affairs of
Pakistan yet the inquiry was conducted and investigation
made, and according to the information/record collected,
revealed/disclosed from a PANAMA based law firm, namely,
Mossack Fonseca commonly referred as “PANAMA PAPERS”
the petitioner’s family was found to have connections with
offshore companies. The Hon’ble Supreme Court of Pakistan
seized of the matter constituted a high profiled Joint
Investigation Team (to be called JIT) to investigate, and after
giving exhaustive hearings, the co-accused Mian Muahmmad
Nawaz Sharif, was declared as not honest in terms of Section
99(1)(f) of the ROPA and Article 62(1)(f) of the Constitution of
Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 and disqualified to be a
W.P. No. 56733/2019 11

member of Parliament. The apex Court also directed the NAB

to prepare and file Reference within six (6) weeks against the
petitioner, her husband, father, brothers, amongst other
relatives in respect of the Avenfield properties. Resultantly,
ACR No. 19 of 2017 was filed and the co-accused Mian
Muhammad Nawaz Sharif, was convicted and sentenced
which shows that he was the real owner of the assets.
According to the NAB, the JIT was constituted with the
majority of 3 to 2 by the apex Court and the petitioner joined
the proceedings and while admitting the ownership of
Avenfield properties introduced certain claims regarding its
acquisition. The JIT found that petitioner was the real
beneficiary owner of BVI companies namely Nielson
Enterprises Limited and Nescoll Limited and the documents
presented were found forged/tampered. A Reference No. 19
of 2017 was also filed against Mian Muhammad Nawaz
Sharif and others regarding Azizia Steel Company in which
he was convicted and sentenced and Reference No. 18 of
2017 was also filed against Mian Muhammad Nawaz Sharif
and others regarding 16 companies and Reference No. 20 of
2017 was also filed regarding Avenfield properties.
7. Mr. Azam Nazeer Tarar and Mr. Muhammad Amjad
Pervaiz, the learned counsel for the petitioner submit
that the allegations levelled against the petitioner Maryam
Nawaz Sharif is that of abetment and aiding the commission
of offence under section 9(a) of NAO, 1999 and that she is
not the principal accused. Add that section 9(a)(xii) of NAO,
1999 was added on 23.11.2002 vide Ordinance No. CXXXIII
W.P. No. 56733/2019 12

of 2002 and in view of Article 13 of the Constitution of

Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 and the view given in
case titled “Brig. ® Karrar Ali Agha Vs. National
Accountability Court No.II, Lahore and another” reported
as PLJ 2010 Lahore 78 (DB) and case titled “The State
through Chairman NAB and others Vs. Muhammad Asif
Saigol and others” reported as PLD 2016 SC 620 (para 12)
it cannot be given a retrospective effect. Add that there is no
deeming clause in the amending Ordinance, therefore, such
amendment is prospective in nature and not retrospective in
effect, thus, cannot be applied to the petitioner. Further
added that the NAO, 1999 was promulgated on 16.11.1999
and under section 2 whereof it had effect from January,
1985, therefore, it could not be applied on the petitioner on
the given allegations. They further contended that the
petitioner was born on 28.10.1973 and was minor at the
time when M/s CSML was incorporated on 05.04.1981.
Argued that she just remained as a shareholder since it was
the part of her family enterprise as reflected from Form A
issued by SECP in 1983. She remained a Director from 1992
to 1997 and Chief Executive in the year 1995-96 at the time
when her grandfather Mian Muhammad Sharif (died on
19.10.2004) had been controlling and supervising the M/s
CSML and after his death his other son, namely, Mian Abbas
Sharif managed it as CEO until his death on 11.01.2013
whereafter his son Mian Yousaf Abbas Sharif her cousin has
been running the M/S CSML as CEO. Also argued that in
violation of Article 13 of the Constitution as well as section
W.P. No. 56733/2019 13

403 Cr.P.C., the petitioner is facing repeating prosecution as

the JIT has already probed the matter and Reference has
been filed by the orders of Hon’ble Supreme Court of
Pakistan in Avenfield, therefore, present
investigation/inquiry is unjustified and legally not
sustainable. Further argued that the charge was framed in
Al-Azizia Reference in respect of the properties including
M/S CSML, therefore, further inquiry is uncalled for. Add
that the petitioner is not the beneficiary of M/S CSML and
that being a mere beneficiary will not attract any offence
under NAO, 1999 in view of the law laid down by the apex
Court in case titled “Abdul Hameed Dogar Vs. Fedceral
Government through Secretary Ministry of Interior and 2
others” reported as PLD 2016 SC 454. Added that the
STR/CTR was prepared on the basis of surmises and
conjectures and the correct figure of the alleged amount was
not even mentioned. Add that the case of the petitioner is at
the most of vicarious liability which could only be
determined by the learned trial court after recording
evidence at trial, therefore, she is entitled to post arrest bail.
Lastly, submit that petitioner is a woman who is otherwise
entitled to the bail keeping in view the various case laws.
They relied upon case titled “Muhammad Ikram and others
Vs. The State” reported as PLD 1965 (W.P.) Lahore 461,
case titled “Mst. Ramzan Bibi and another Vs. Hakim
Muzaffar Hussain” reported as PLD 1967 Lahore 186,
case titled “Ramesh Maudeshi Vs. The State” reported as
2002 P.Cr.L.J. 1712, case titled “Ch. Tanveer Khan Vs.
W.P. No. 56733/2019 14

Chairman, National Accountability Bureau and others”

reported as PLD 2002 SC 572, case titled “Badar Alam
Bachani Vs. The State through Chairman NAB and
another” reported as 2010 P.Cr.L.J. 1988, case titled
“Noorshad Vs. Chairman National Accountability Bureau
and 5 others” reported as 2017 P.Cr.L.J. 1258. Also relies
upon case titled “Chairman, National Accountability
Bureau, Islamabad through Prosecutor General
Accountability, Islamabad Vs. Mian Muhammad Nawaz
Sharif and 2 others” reported as PLD 2019 SC 445, case
titled “Muhammad Zoonoon Khan Vs. Federation of
Pakistan through Secretary Ministry of Law, Justice,
Human Rights and Parliaments Affairs, Islamabad”
reported as PLD 2014 Federal Sharif Court 63, case titled
“Miss Shahla Raza Vs. The State” reported as 1991 MLD
1814, case titled “Mst. Afsar Bibi Vs. The State” reported
as 2005 P.Cr.L.J. 164 and case titled “Khan Haroon
Resikh Vs. The State and 2 others” reported as PLD 2003
Lahore 517. Also places reliance upon case titled “Messrs
Hudaibya Paper Milsl Ltd. and others Vs. Federation of
Pakistan and others” reported as PLD 2016 Lahore 667
and case titled “National Accountability Bureau (NAB)
through Chairman Vs. Messrs Hudaibya Paper Mills
Limited Lahore and others” reported as PLD 2018 SC 296.
Also relies upon case titled “Asif Ali Zardari Vs. The State
and another” reported as 1992 P.Cr.L.J. 58, case titled
“Tariq Sultan and another Vs. National Accountability
Bureaue through Chairman and 2 others” reported as
W.P. No. 56733/2019 15

2012 P.Cr.L.J. 1983, case titled “Dr. Asghar Ali Vs. The
State and others” reported as 2016 P.Cr.L.J. 193.
8. Mr. Jahanzaib Bharwana, learned Additional
Special Prosecutor for NAB submits that extra ordinary
jurisdiction regarding grant of bail is to be exercised in extra
ordinary circumstances and not in run of the mill case or as
a matter of course, and only when the custody of the
accused was shockingly, unconscionable or inordinately
delayed and not otherwise, and that primary consideration
for the grant of bail is undue hardship and, more often than
not, prima facie merits of the case are also to be looked into.
Also submits that High Courts have already been burdened
with the bail application under Article 199 of the
Constitution, therefore, such powers are to be exercised in
circumspection and caution as extra ordinary jurisdiction is
invoked and exercised to advance the cause of justice and
not to frustrate it or to defeat the intent of law and just to
prevent the miscarriage of justice and abuse of NAO, 1999
and not a substitute of power under Sections 426, 491, 497,
498 and 561-A Cr.P.C. to be exercised liberally and
indiscriminately as ordinary criminal jurisdiction. Adds that
prima facie sufficient material is available on record to
connect the petitioner with the commission of offence and
that the purpose of NAO, 1999 is to curb is not
commonplace and the offenders who indulged in it are not of
the normal type as these are the crimes not against the
individual but against the society, therefore, response has to
be dynamic and punitive rather than benign or curative and
W.P. No. 56733/2019 16

it was also argued that it may be true that an individual

subjected to the rigours of this law may sometime suffer
disproportionately but the greater good of the society
emerging from stringent applications of this law may make
this approach worth its while. According to the learned
Prosecutor as stated in the parawise comments, there is a
likelihood of her fleeing from the country or going
underground or becoming unavailable like co-accused
Yousaf Abbas Sharif, who tried to flee/abscond from the
country. Adds that record does not show/substantiate the
false, evasive, vague and unfounded allegations of malice or
malafide on the part of the NAB, therefore, petition does not
qualify to be allowed since factual controversies have been
raised. Also submits that Hon’ble Supreme Court of Pakistan
had framed 13 questions to be probed by the JIT and vide
order dated 28.07.2018, upon the receipt of the said JIT
report, NAB was directed to file Reference against Mian
Muhammad Nawaz Sharif, petitioner, Hussain Nawaz,
Hassan Nawaz and Capt. ® Muhammad Safdar, relating to
Avenfield properties (Flats No. 16, 16-A, 17 and 17-A,
Avenfield House, Park Lane, London, UK.
9. Arguments heard. File perused.
10. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner
and the learned Prosecutors for NAB assisted by
Investigating Officer/case officer and perusing the record
placed before this Court, we have straightway noticed that
petitioner being a woman had invoked the Constitutional
jurisdiction of this Court under Article 199 of the
W.P. No. 56733/2019 17

Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 for the

grant of her post arrest bail made on the allegation that she
aided and abetted as CEO/Director/ shareholder of M/s
CSML and SSML to facilitate in acquiring of assets
disproportionate to the known sources of income of the
petitioner, her father namely, Mian Muhammad Nawaz
Sharif, and others since their investment of Rs. 2000 Million
was not accounted for. She has also been alleged to have
aided her father to acquire 11.572 Million shares of M/S
CSML worth Rs. 400 Million statedly transferred by three
foreign nationals namely, Saeed Saif Bin Jabar Al-Suweidi,
Sh. Zaka-ud-Din and Hani Ahmed Jamjoom. Another UAE
national, namely, Nasser Abdullah Hussain Lootah, made TT
of US$ 4.8 Million as consideration for 11 Million ordinary
shares was found false only in view of his statement
recorded on 03.08.2019. She has also been alleged to have
connived with her father to acquire assets of SSML of worth
Rs.1200 Million without disclosing the sufficient funds and
thus she aided and abetted her co-accused person to gain
and extend pecuniary benefits through corruption and
corrupt practices.
11. According to Section 9 (a)(xii) of NAO, 1999 if someone
aids, assists, abets, attempts or acts in conspiracy with a
person or a holder of public office, accused of an offence
defined in Section 9(a) (i) to (xi) of NAO, 1999, can be
punished under Section 10 of NAO, 1999 for a term which
may extend to 14 years. This Section was not originally in
the Ordinance but was added through Ordinance No CXXXIII
W.P. No. 56733/2019 18

of 2002 dated 23.11.2002 obviously without retrospective

effect. However, the allegations were levelled for the period of
the year 2008 onward, therefor, this section prima facie can
be attracted in the present case with Reference to its
existence at the time of alleged crime.
12. Since the case was argued before us with a well-known
background, therefore, it would be expedient to lay down
some basic premise for the purposes of our discussion
essential for the order in present case. In the judgment
reported as PLD 2017 Supreme Court 692, a final order
was announced under which NAB Rawalpindi/Islamabad
was directed to file Reference within a period of 6 weeks on
the basis of material collected and referred to by the JIT in
its report and such other material as may be available with
FIA and NAB having any nexus with the assets mentioned or
which may subsequently become available pursuant to the
Mutual Legal Assistance Request sent by JIT to different
jurisdictions. In clause “a” of the said order Reference was to
be filed against the petitioner and others in respect of
Avenfield properties in UK and under clause “c” on the basis
of statements of Sheikh Saeed, Musa Ghani, Kashif Masood
Qazi, Javaid Kiyani and Saeed Ahmed, made against the
petitioner leading to the acquisition of assets beyond the
known sources of income, and under clause “f” any
supplementary Reference could also be filed. Notably, M/S
CSML was not mentioned anywhere. Relevant extract is
reproduced as under:-
“FINAL ORDER OF THE COURT.
W.P. No. 56733/2019 19

The National Accountability Bureau (NAB) shall within six weeks

from the date of this judgment prepare and file before the
Accountability Court, Rawalpindi/Islamabad, the following
References, on the basis of the matrial collected and referred to by
the Joint Investigating Team (JIT) in its report and such other
material as may be available with the Federal \Investigation
Agency (FIA) and NAB having any nexus with assets mentioned
below or which may subsequently become available including
material that may come before it pursuant to the Mutual Legal
Assistance requests sent by the JIT to different jurisdictions:-
(a) Reference against Mian Muhammad Nawaz Sharif,
(respondent No.1) Maryam Nawaz Sharif (Maryam Safdar),
(Respondent No.6), Hussain Nawaz Sharif (Respondent No.7),
Hassan Nawaz Sharif (Respondent No.8) and Capt. (Retd).
Muhammad Safdar (Respondent No.9) relating to the Avenfield
properties (Flats Nos. 16, 16-A, 17 and 17-A Avenfield House,
Park Lane, London, United Kingdom). In preparing and filing
this Reference, the NAB shall also consider the material alrady
collected during the course of investigations conducted earlier,
as indicated in the detailed judgments.
(b) …………
(c) …………
(d) …………
(e) NAB shall also include in the proceedings all other persons
including Sheikh Saeed, Musa Ghani, Kashif Masood Qazi, Javaid
Kiyani and Saeed Ahmad, who have any direct or indirect nexus or
connection with the actions of respondents Nos.1, 6, 7, 8 and 10
leading to acquisition of assets and funds beyond their known
sources of income.”

13. On 12.01.2018 STR/CTR were received in respect of

politically exposed persons and linked individuals/entities
on the basis of details in Volume 1 and 2 of the report
submitted before the Supreme Court and according to clause
5 thereof, in respect of M/S CSML, the petitioner was
mentioned as one of the directors amongst many others; a
status which is not denied by the petitioner. In the analysis
of STR/CTR, a reference was given to the report submitted
by HBL in respect of M/S CSML dated 22.09.2017 in respect
of account maintained with their Corporate Center Branch
since 24.10.1998 and under clause “5(a)” of CONCLUSION
W.P. No. 56733/2019 20

AND RECOMMENDATIONS a mention was made to the

judgment of PANAMA Papers against Mian Muhammad
Nawaz Sharif by the Supreme Court of Pakistan and it was
stated that M/S CSML had maintained several accounts in
the business name of HBL, some of them have been closed
and some remained dormant since it was mostly for
business transaction. One transaction in the MCB Bank
account of Mian Muhammad Nawaz Sharif reflects transfer
of Rs. 18.019 Million to M/S CSML and Rs. 2.335 Million
transferred from SCB account to Mian Muhammad Nawaz
Sharif and then to M/S CSML. But the name of the
petitioner does not figure out anywhere. Relevant excerpt is
reproduced as under:-
“5. The other STRs/CTRs received pertained to Chaudhary
Sugar Mills Ltd, Mian Muhammad Shahbaz Sharif and some
possibly linked individuals. The STRs were raised in the backdrop
of the judgment on Panama Papers case against Mian Muhammad
Nawaz Sharif by the Supreme Court of Pakistan.
a. Chaudhary Sugar Mills had been maintaining several
accounts in the business name with HBL, some of which have been
closed or become inactive over a period of time. However, the
suspicion was not raised on any particular transaction in the
accounts of Chaudhary Sugar Mills. The transactions in the
accounts mostly appear to be business transactions. One of the
transactions in the MCB account of Mian Nawaz Sharif reflects
transfer of Rs.18.019 M to M/s Chaudhary Sugar Mills Ltd.
Likewise, funds amounting to Rs.2,335 M were transferred from
SCB account of Mian Nawaz Sharif to M/s Chaudhary Sugar Mills
Ltd.”

14. These two important foundations do not prima-facie

expose the name of petitioner directly to suggest that she
actively participated, connived, abetted or aided to acquire
assets disproportionate to the known sources of income
since no connection of the petitioner was established with
W.P. No. 56733/2019 21

said foreign nationals in order to persuade them to invest in

M/S CSML to attract the provisions of NAO, 1999 & AMLA
2010.
15. It has also not been denied by either party that during
the proceedings in the PANAMA case, M/S CSML never
remained as a subject of discussion, therefore, in our
considered view NAB can possibly probe and investigate into
the matter and the question of double jeopardy would not
prime facie arise in favour of the petitioner. Article 13 of the
Constitution and section 403 Cr.P.C. and the judgment cited
at bar do not support the petitioner, therefore, the
judgments cited at bar titled “Muhammad Ikram and
others Vs. The State” reported as PLD 1965 (W.P.) Lahore
461, case titled “Mst. Ramzan Bibi and another Vs. Hakim
Muzaffar Hussain” reported as PLD 1967 Lahore 186,
case titled “Ramesh Maudeshi Vs. The State” reported as
2002 P.Cr.L.J. 1712, case titled “Ch. Tanveer Khan Vs.
Chairman, National Accountability Bureau and others”
reported as PLD 2002 SC 572, case titled “Badar Alam
Bachani Vs. The State through Chairman NAB and
another” reported as 2010 P.Cr.L.J. 1988, case titled
“Brig. ® Karrar Ali Agha Vs. National Accountability
Court No.II, Lahore and another” reported as PLJ 2010
Lahore 78 (DB), case titled “Noorshad Vs. Chairman
National Accountability Bureau and 5 others” reported as
2017 P.Cr.L.J. 1258 will not be attracted to the present
case.
W.P. No. 56733/2019 22

16. Likewise, the other argument raised from the

petitioner’s side is that at the time of incorporation of M/S
CSML in the year 1981, the petitioner was a minor,
therefore, she cannot be held responsible for any such
transaction but this argument cannot be appreciated at this
stage for the simple reason that allegations against her
pertain to year 2008 and onward when she was not only
major but also shareholder with increased shareholding in
M/S CSML.
17. However, as far as the ownership of share of Nasser
Abdullah Hussain Lootah, a UAE national is concerned, the
official record pertaining to SECP does not show that he was
not the shareholder, therefore, ipso facto his denial of this
fact mentioned in Form A dated 10.02.2012 needs further
probe since correction of this record require some procedure
to be adopted by him, which we have not noticed in the
present case. Besides, presumption of truth is attached to
the Form A as held in case titled “Waseem Yaqoob Vs.
Chief Commissioner, Income Tax, Lahore and 2 others”
reported as 2012 PTD 1883. The relevant extract is
reproduced as under:-
“In the instant case it has done so and accordingly, the
Company filed the Form A for the year 1997. Furthermore, section
155 of the C O 1984 provides that the registers referred to in
section 156 shall be prima facie evidence of the matters contained
therein. Section 156(4) provides that all the particulars to be
submitted under section 156(1) and (2) shall have been entered in
the register maintained with the company. Reading both these
sections together means that the Form A is prima facie evidence of
the matters contained therein and if the respondents refute or deny
the information then, it should be through cogent evidence
supporting their stance.”
W.P. No. 56733/2019 23

Importantly, he has admitted before the NAB that he sent

the money out of the investment made by the petitioner’s
family in real estate on their instructions back to them
though he does not own any share in M/S CSML. In our
considered view, the petitioner has prima facie shown her
money trail linked to the said foreigners, leaving the
prosecution to further probe into the matter of the allegation
against the petitioner. We were informed that Mr. Lootah had
made a statement on 03.08.2019, photocopy of which was
neither certified nor notarized by foreign office. However, a
statement was recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. before the
court of Waseem Ahmed Khan, Additional District
Magistrate, Islamabad on 05.08.2019, repeating the said
statement, in the absence of the petitioner and her learned
counsel without permitting the right to cross-examine,
therefore, its effect may be considered by the trial court after
recording of evidence. Besides, the fact of TT US$ 4.885
Million sent to Yousaf Abbas Sharif’s account in Pakistan as
a profit/investment from real estate made by the family of
the petitioner would shift the onus back to the prosecution
to prove it as a dubious transaction. Importantly, statements
of other three foreigners namely, Saeed Saif Bin Jabar Al-
Suweidi, Sh. Zaka-ud-Din and Hani Ahmed Jamjoom, have
not so far been recorded by the prosecution who were also
mentioned as shareholder vide Form A dated 21.05.2008,
therefore, calling for further probe into the guilt of the
petitioner. In case titled “Abdul Aziz Memon and others Vs.
The State and others” reported as PLD 2013 SC 594, it
W.P. No. 56733/2019 24

was held that even the foreign officer making transaction

with the holder of public office may be come accused and
falling in any category of “accused persons” but in the
present case such foreigners were not cited as accused
persons.
18. Besides, in “Abdul Hameed Dogar Vs. Federal
Government through Secretary, Ministry of Interior and
2 others” reported as PLD 2016 SC 454, it has been held
that there is a difference between an aider/abettor and a
beneficiary as the former abets or aids with another who is a
privy to the acts itself but a beneficiary takes the benefit or
advantage of the said act after the event. In the present case,
as already discussed above, it has not come on record that
the petitioner had in any manner aided, abetted to persuade
the foreign nationals to send their money into M/s CSML
account.. The relevant extract of the judgment at page 461 is
reproduced as under:-
“The difference between an aider/abettor and a beneficiary
is quite obvious. A person aiding or abetting another in an act is
privy to the act itself but a beneficiary takes benefit or advantage
of the act after the event and he may not necessarily be a party to
the act itself.”

19. Here a reference can also be given to case titled “Asif

Ali Zardari Vs. The State and another” reported as 1992
P.Cr.L.J. 58, passed by the Division Bench of Hon’ble Sindh
High Court in which the offence of abetment was explained
with reference to its ingredients which shows the elements of
mens rea as sine qua non for the constitution of the said
W.P. No. 56733/2019 25

offence. The relevant extract from page 70 is reproduced as

under:-
“The offence of abetment has been defined by section 107
of the Pakistan Penal Code. The definition shows in the first
instance, that a person abets the doing of a thing who instigates
any person to do that thing . Secondly, a person is also said to
abet the doing of a thing who engages with one or more other
person or persons in any conspiracy for the doing of that thing, if
an act or illegal omission takes place in pursuance of that
conspiracy, and in order to the doing of that thing'. Thirdly, a
person is said to abet the doing of a thing if he intentionally aids,
by any act or illegal omission, the doing of that thing'. In
Ballentine's Law Dictionary the word instigate has been defined to
mean `to stimulate or goad to an action, specially a bad act, to
incite, to foment, specially the commission of a crime'. The same
word has also been defined by Black's Law Dictionary as `to
stimulate or goad to an action, specially a bad action'. `Instigation'
has been defined by the same Dictionary to mean as 'incitation,
urging, solicitation. The act by which one incites, another to do
something, as to commit some crime or to commence a suit'.”

“We would like to point out that, as is evident from the

definition of abetment contained in section 107, Cr.P.C. mens rea
would be an essential ingredient of the said offence. Maxwell on
the Interpretation of Statutes (12th Edn.) at page 123 observes:
`where an offence is created by Statute, however comprehensive
and unqualified the language of the Statute, it is usually
understood as silently requiring that the element of mens rea
should be imported into the definition of the crime, unless a
contrary intention is expressed or implied'. The definition of
abetment in section 107, P.P.C. relates to instigation, conspiracy
and intentional aiding. An element of criminality must, therefore,
be clearly spelt out before a person can be indicted for abetment.”

20. On the question of assets beyond means, in case titled

“Ghani-ur-Rehman Vs. National Accountability Bureau
and others” reported as PLD 2011 SC 1144, it has been
held that mere possession of any pecuniary resources of
property is not an offence but its failure to satisfactorily
account for such possession of pecuniary resources of
property that makes the possession objectionable and
constitute the relevant offence. This view has already been
W.P. No. 56733/2019 26

adopted by this court in case titled “Brig. ® Imtiaz Ahmad

Vs. The State” reported as PLD 2017 Lahore 23 for assets
beyond means which has been upheld by the Hon’ble
Supreme Court of Pakistan. The observations of their
lordships read as under:-
“To cater the situation we have been guided again by the
Supreme Court of Pakistan in Ghani-ur-Rehman v. National
Accountability Bureau and others (PLD 2011 Supreme Court 1144),
wherein it was held that the prosecution must bring on record the
misuse of authority of the public servant to show that the assets
built by him is disproportionate to the known source of income.
Relevant extract of said judgment is reproduced as under:--

"The law now stands settled that in order to prove

commission of an offence under section 9(a)(v) of the National
Accountability Ordinance, 1999 it has to be proved by the
prosecution as to what were the known sources of income of the
accused person at the relevant time and that the resources or
property of the accused person were disproportionate to his known
sources of income and it is after such proof has been led and the
necessary details have been provided by the prosecution that the
onus shifts to the accused person to account for such resources or
property because mere possession of any pecuniary resource or
property is by itself not an offence but it is failure to satisfactorily
to account for such possession of pecuniary resource or property
that makes the possession objectionable and constitutes the
relevant offence. In the case in hand the appellant's sources of
income had never been brought on the record by the prosecution
and had never been quantified by it at any stage of this case and,
therefore, it was not possible for the learned trial court to conclude
or to hold that the appellant or his dependants or so-called
benamidars owned or possessed assets or pecuniary resources
disproportionate to the appellant's income. It is unfortunate that the
investigating officer of this case as well as those responsible for
prosecution of this case before the learned trial court had, probably
on account of their sheer incompetence, utterly failed to do the
needful in this regard and it is regrettable that even the learned
trial court as well as the learned appellate court had completely
failed to advert to this critical aspect of the present case."

21. As far as section 3 of Anti-Money Laundering Act,

2010 is concerned, it will be expedient to reproduce the
same:-
W.P. No. 56733/2019 27

“3. Offence of money laundering.—A person shall be

guilty of offence of money laundering, if the person:
— (a) acquires, converts, possesses, uses or transfers
property, knowing or having reason to believe that
such property is proceeds of crime; (b) conceals or
disguises the true nature, origin, location,
disposition, movement or ownership of property,
knowing or having reason to believe that such
property is proceeds of crime; (c) holds or possesses
on behalf of any other person any property knowing
or having reason to believe that such property is
proceeds of crime; or (d) participates in, associates,
conspires to commit, attempts to commit, aids,
abets, facilitates, or counsels the commission of the
acts specified in clauses (a), (b) and (c). Explanation-
I.— The knowledge, intent or purpose required as an
element of an offence set forth in this section may be
inferred from factual circumstances in accordance
with the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984 (P.O. 10 of
1984). Explanation II.- For the purposes of proving
an offence under this section, the conviction of an
accused for the respective predicate offence shall not
be required.”

Perusal of said Section reveals that there has to be

some nexus with the crime proceeds and, therefore, it pre-
supposes that some crime had been committed. According to
the learned Prosecutor, the offence under NAO, 1999 is an
“intended” crime, therefore, to attract the ingredients of this
Section, further investigation will be required. In case titled
“Syed Mushahid Shah and others Vs. Federal Investment
Agency and others” reported as 2017 SCMR 1218, it has
been held that in case of conflict between two special laws
containing over riding clauses, the later-in-time would
prevail over the statute prior in time but this is not
automatic instead a host of other factors will be attracted.
Obviously, AMLA 2010 is later in time which attracts lesser
W.P. No. 56733/2019 28

punishment, therefore, it would be interesting discussion

before the trial court on this aspect.
22. The question of making layers and becoming beneficial
also requires further probe since it is not the prosecution
case that investments in the real estate in UAE was out of
some crime proceeds in the form of ill-gotten money. It is
also not the prosecution case that said money coming from
UAE was black money having origin from some crime
proceeds of internationally recognized crimes like terrorism,
etc. Undoubtedly, attracting foreign investment has always
been a perennial demand of every government and all
governments would dream of it but great hurdles were
always faced by them to make it a reality.
23. We have been shown the bank statement of Account
No. 0149056661004053 in the name of petitioner in which
transaction of Rs. 41,06,6200 and Rs. 28,933800 were made
in the month of November, 2011 and a sum of about seven
crores rupees were withdrawn in the same month by the
petitioner but on the face of it, it does not help out the
prosecution for the simple reason that it is not the
prosecution case that M/S CSML was bankrupt or was in
loss, therefore, no money could be withdrawn by
shareholder/CEO. However, this aspect of the matter can be
probed by the NAB. It was held by this court in case titled
“Dr. Asghar Ali Vs. The State and another” reported as
2016 P.Cr.L.J. 193 that the benefit of any such transaction
should be clear and visibly established and should not be
shrouded in mystery. The withdrawal of amount of Rs.7
W.P. No. 56733/2019 29

crore as alleged by the NAB, cannot be termed as illegal

gotten money or an asset beyond known source of income
since prima-facie the source of money was shown in the
official record of the M/s CSML with Reference to foreign
investment.
24. The judgments cited by the prosecution as case titled
“Tallat Ishaq Vs. National Accountability Bureau through
Chairman, and others” reported as PLD 2019 SC 112, does
not totally oust the jurisdiction of this court under Article
199 of the Constitution for the simple reason that the
constitutional jurisdiction which is always attracted where
there is absence of alternate and efficacious remedy.
However, besides considering the hardship of the case,
merits of the case will always be taken into consideration at
the time of deciding of bail application. It is true that
corruption and corrupt practices are rampant in our society,
therefore, needed to be curbed with iron hands but at the
same time, this court cannot keep its eyes off the legal
proposition that bail cannot be withheld as a punishment
since this court would otherwise transgress into the power of
the trial court to return its finding upon guilt on the basis of
evidence. In case titled “Abdul Aziz Khan Niazi Vs. The
State through Chairman NAB, Islamabad” reported as PLD
2003 SC 668, it was held that the ultimate conviction and
incarceration of a guilty person can repair the wrong caused
by a mistaken relief of (woman) bail granted to him, but no
satisfactory reparation can be offered to an innocent man for
his unjustified incarceration at any stage of the case albeit
W.P. No. 56733/2019 30

his acquittal in the long run. The relevant extract is

reproduced as under:-
“6. The grant of bail in Constitutional jurisdiction by thigh Court
is t entirely discretionary but there can be no deviation to the rule that
discretion should not be exercised in violation of recognized principles of
justice and if it is exercised only on the basis of presumption, inference,
suspicion or bare allegation, it would defeat the very purpose of
discretion. The High Court, in exercise of its discretion, should not
proceed in departure to the recognized principles and in case such an
error is committed, the Supreme Court is always empowered to interfere
in the matter in the interest of complete justice. The law does not permit
to detain the people in jail only on the basis of presumption and
suspicion of commission of criminal acts, therefore, it is the duty of
Court to administer the justice, prevent the abuse of law and protect the
liberty of people. The High Court while considering the question of bail in
its Constitutional jurisdiction can examine the nature of allegation on
the basis of tentative assessment of the evidence in the hands of
prosecution to ascertain prima facie, the question of guilt or innocence of
an accused for the purpose of grant or refusal of bail and without
expressing on the merits of the case, lest it should prejudice the accused
or prosecution, should exercise discretionary jurisdiction in the interest
of administration of justice. This is settled law that bail cannot be
claimed as a matter of right but there can also be no departure to the
rule that bail in non-bailable offences should not be withheld as
punishment, therefore, the High Court while dealing with the question of
bail in its Constitutional jurisdiction must consider it carefully and
weighed in the scale of justice. The reasonableness of the grounds for
withholding the bail to person accused of a non-bailable offence must be
shown through the material and merely a suspicion may be sufficiently
strong, is not enough to refuse the bail. There can be no cavil to the
position that the High Court may or may not interfere in a matter in its
discretionary jurisdiction but refusal to interfere must not offend the
spirit of law and cause of justice as the object of exercise of discretionary
jurisdiction is always to foster the justice, preserve the rights and protect
the liberties. This Court in Manzoor and 4 other v. State (PLD 1972 SC
81) held as under:--

"It is important to remember that bail is not to be withheld as a

punishment. There is no legal or moral compulsion to keep people in jail
merely on the allegation that they have committed offences punishable
with death or transportation, unless reasonable grounds appear to exist
to disclose their complicity. The ultimate conviction and incarceration of
a guilty person can repair the wrong caused by a mistaken relief of
interim bail granted to him but no satisfactory reparation can be offered
to an innocent man for his unjustified incarceration at any stage of the
case albeit his acquittal in the long run."
W.P. No. 56733/2019 31

This judgment, with utmost respects of the Hon’ble Supreme

Court, was neither discussed nor referred in Tallat Ishaq’s
case.
25. Besides, this court in W.P.No.42682-2019 titled
“Muhammad Sabtain Khan Vs. National Accountability
Bureau, etc.” and W.P.No.581-2019 titled “Hafiz Mian
Muhammad Nauman Vs. Director General NAB etc.”, has
decided that in appropriate cases the constitutional
jurisdiction in respect of the grant of bail can be exercised
and, therefore, fully attracted in the present case.
26. The petitioner had also filed an application for the
interim bail so as to see her ailing father already hospitalized
in which we have been informed by the State that she is
accompany her father in the hospital to look after his health,
therefore, prayer to the extent of grant of interim bail has not
been pressed by the learned counsel for the petitioner.
27. The petitioner also seeks bail on the ground that she is
a woman and refers to the judgment given in case titled
“Miss Shahla Raza Vs. The State” reported as 1991 MLD
1814 and case titled “Mst.Afsar Bibi Vs. The State”
reported as 2005 P.Cr.L.J. 164, in which it was held that
grant of bail to a woman is also discretionary but the courts
have always been leaned towards such exercise, therefore,
grant of bail to a woman should be a rule and discretion
must be exercised in her favour in the absence of compelling
circumstances disentitling her to the grant of bail. In the
present case the exceptional circumstances do not appear to
attract in favour of the prosecution, since she has neither
W.P. No. 56733/2019 32

absconded nor obstructed the process of law. A reference

may also be given to case titled “Zohra Khanum Vs. The
State” reported as 2009 SCMR 751 in which the Hon’ble
Supreme Court of Pakistan has held that showing the
common intention/abetment by a woman even in a murder
case required further probe, therefore, the bail was granted.
Besides, in the judgment titled “Chairman, National
Accountability Bureau, Islamabad through Prosecutor
General Accountability, Islamabad Vs. Mian Muhammad
Nawaz Sharif and 2 others” reported as PLD 2019 SC 445
it was already observed that the petitioner being a woman
was rightly granted to concession of bail. Relevant extract of
para 6 is reproduced as under:-
“One of the said respondents is already in ail after having
been convicted and sentenced in connection with another criminal
case, another of the said respondents is a woman and the law
envisages concession for her in the matter of bail and the sentence
of imprisonment passed by the trial court against yet another of the
said respondents was quite short.”

28. Since the prosecution has shown the bank statement

of the account No.0149056661004053 of the petitioner in
which on 28.11.2011 vide Cheque No.39438534, Rs.7 crores
were withdrawn and the prosecution has apprehension of
fleeing away of the petitioner, therefore, to satisfy our
judicial conscience we would pass a conditional order.
29. Keeping in view the above discussion and the case law
cited by the respective parties, while exercising the
constitutional jurisdiction under Article 199 of the
Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, we allow
W.P. No. 56733/2019 33

this petition and admit the petitioner to post arrest bail

subject to furnishing of surety bonds in the sum of Rs.10
Millions with two sureties each in the like amount to the
satisfaction of the learned trial court and to establish her
bonafide would also deposit amount of Rs.7 crore with the
Deputy Registrar (Judicial) of this court besides submitting
her passport(s) with him.

(SARDAR AHMED NAEEM) (ALI BAQAR NAJAFI)

Judge Judge

Announced in open court on _____________

Judge Judge

Approved for reporting.

Judge Judge
Shahzad/A.Qadoos*