SCMR 2022

2022 PLP 1260 (SCMR)

WASEEM ZEB KHAN — Petitioner Versus The CHAIRMAN, NATIONAL ACCOUNTABILITY BUREAU, NAB HEADQUARTERS, ISLAMABAD and others — Respondents

Jurisdiction / Court
Supreme Court of Pakistan
Decided Date
Civil Petition No. 722-P of 2021, decided on 25th January, 2022.
Honorable Judges
Umar Ata Bandial and Qazi Muhammad Amin Ahmed, JJ
Case Reference Summary (AEO Optimized)
Citation 2022 PLP 1260 (SCMR)
Forum / Court Supreme Court of Pakistan
Bench Members Umar Ata Bandial and Qazi Muhammad Amin Ahmed, JJ
Parties WASEEM ZEB KHAN — Petitioner Versus The CHAIRMAN, NATIONAL ACCOUNTABILITY BUREAU, NAB HEADQUARTERS, ISLAMABAD and others — Respondents
Primary Law Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)
💡 Quick Legal QA & Summary / سوال و جواب خلاصہ
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2022 PLP 1260 (SCMR)?

This judgment primarily cites: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.

Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2022 PLP 1260 (SCMR)?

The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Umar Ata Bandial and Qazi Muhammad Amin Ahmed, JJ.

Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?

Cite this legal precedent as: 2022 PLP 1260 (SCMR) (WASEEM ZEB KHAN — Petitioner Versus The CHAIRMAN, NATIONAL ACCOUNTABILITY BUREAU, NAB HEADQUARTERS, ISLAMABAD and others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.

Laws Cited

Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)

Representation

  • Barrister Waqar Ali Khan, Advocate Supreme Court for Petitioner.

Headnotes / Summary

(Against the order dated 05.10.2021 passed by the Peshawar High Court Peshawar in W.P. No.2622-P of 2021)

S. 497

National Accountability Ordinance (XVIII of 1999), S. 9

Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 185(3)

Bail, refusal of

Defrauding and cheating the public at large by way of a fraudulent investment scheme

Perusal of the case record showed a long list of victims deprived of huge amounts, each blaming the accused for soliciting deposits in lieu of regular lucrative profit, a promise that soon turned out as farce

All the victims were from different regions and backgrounds, thus, present case could not possibly be stage-managed to cook up a false case that too without any reason

Investigative details confirmed establishment of an office as was unanimously pointed out by the witnesses in their statements before the Investigating Officer

Small amount statedly deposited by the accused (in the fraudulent company) to project himself as an innocent victim of the scam without any tangible proof, in the face of formidable evidence, did not provide any space to hypothesize his claim of innocence

In this backdrop, refusal by the High Court to release the accused on bail in exercise of its Constitutional jurisdiction was not open to any legitimate exception

Petition for leave to appeal was dismissed, leave was refused, and accused was denied bail. Akbtar Tarar, Additional P.G. and Nasir Mehmood Mughal, Special Prosecutor with Ansar Butt, I.O. for the NAB.

Judgment & Decree

QAZI MUHAMMAD AMIN AHMED, J.

Veiled behind a fake online company fraudulently shown to have been registered with the Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan with the name and style of Space Construction Pvt. Ltd., alongside the co-accused, the petitioner is part of the scam that lured people to invest against monthly profit at the rate of 21 % of the deposited amount. 1700 claimants parting with an amount of Rs. 1.7 billion fell in the trap before the hoax was detected, pursuant whereto, the petitioner was arrested on the 20th of May, 2021. The mastermind behind the scam was Muhammad Taimoor who established online deceit through fake identity of Rabia Batool; the petitioner joined him in September 2019 and projected himself to the unsuspecting public as Senior Director of the Company; at his tier, he operated alongside Riaz Khattak and Iftikhar Khattak, absconders till date, through an office set up at Peshawar. As the investigation progressed, the affectees, still pouring in to join the process, recorded their statements wherein they unambiguously blamed the petitioner for having received the sums through the trap. Colossal amounts were siphoned off beyond investigative reach through conversion into crypto currency/bit coins.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that petitioner is himself victim of the scam as he initially made a deposit in the hope to earn profits and, thus, joined the company without any mens rea to defraud the public at large and as such is not beneficiary of the fraud; it is next argued that despite lapse of considerable time, the NAB has not yet filed the reference and, thus, his continuous detention is serving no useful purpose.

3. Heard. Record perused.

4. With the assistance of learned Law Officer, we have gone through the record to find a long list of victims deprived of huge amounts, each blaming the petitioner for soliciting deposit in lieu of regular lucrative profit, a promise that soon turned out as farce; the affectees are from different regions and backgrounds and, thus, cannot be possibly stage-managed to cook up a false case that too without any earthly reason. Investigative details confirm establishment of an office at Peshawar as is unanimously pointed out by the witnesses in their statements before the Investigating Officer. A small amount statedly deposited by the petitioner to project himself as an innocent victim of the scam without any tangible proof, in the face of formidable evidence, does not provide any space to hypothesize his claim of innocence. In this backdrop, refusal by the High Court to release the petitioner on bail in exercise of its equitable Constitutional jurisdiction is not open to any legitimate exception. Petition fails. Leave declined. We are dismayed by Investigating Officer's failure to recover the pilferage and locate assets accumulated through the scam; his failure to arrest the co-accused and file reference in time are no less disquieting either. MWA/W-3/SC Bail refused.