2019 PLP 1118 (MLD)

MALIK HAQ NAWAZ, J.

The petitioner was booked for the offences under NAB Ordinance vide warrant of arrest No.293/10/2016 dated 04.02.2016.

2. The interesting phase of the case of the petitioner begins, when he filed a Writ Petition No.34/2016 for this Court for grant of bail, which was allowed vide order/judgment of this Court dated 28-06-2016. The respondent being aggrieved from the order/judgment of this Court filed Cr. PLA No.26/2016, which was allowed and bail granted to the petitioner was re-called vide order dated 08-11-2016. However the Hon'ble apex Court directed the learned trial Court to try the case expeditiously and conclude the same within a period of six months.

3. The trial Court failed to comply with the orders of this Court, which provided a fresh ground to the petitioner to file a fresh petition, which was also accepted by this Court on 21-06-2017 and bail was allowed to the petitioner mainly on the grounds that the directions of Hon'ble apex Court have not been complied with. The respondents again being aggrieved from the order/judgment filed Cr. PLA No.35/2017, which was again allowed and bail granting order was re-called vide judgment/order dated 25-09-2017 and the plea that till may 2018 out of 28 PWs only 11 PWs have been examined. The Writ Petition No.92/ 2018 was disposed of on 25-06-2018, with the direction to the learned trial Court to complete the trial of the case within 02 months. The instant writ petition has again been filed on the same plea that the direction of apex Court contained in order/judgment dated 08-11-2018 as well as of this Court and in judgment/order dated 25-06-2018 not been followed and more so the spirit of section 16 of NAB Ordinance, 1999 has also been defeated. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that an early and fair trial is right of an accused and cannot be kept in jail as a measure of advance punishment.

4. Conversely the learned Special Prosecutor NAB vehemently contested the petition and submitted that the petitioner himself is responsible for causing delay in conclusion of trial of the case. The learned Special Prosecutor submitted that the trial is at the verge of completion and the release of petitioner on bail will defeat the very concept of NAB Ordinance.

5. Heard in detail and record perused minutely.

6. The petitioner was arrested on 04-02-2016 and despite clear directions contained in judgment/order of apex Court dated 08-11-2016 to conclude trial within a period of 06 months, the trial Court failed to complete the trial even after lapse of 01 year and 10 months. The learned trial Court also failed to honour the direction of this Court contained in judgment/order dated 25-06-2018 and as informed by the learned defence counsel that only 11 PWs have been examined out of 28 PWs. The early conclusion of trial is not insight, therefore, in our view a case for grant of bail is made out. The petitioner is admitted to bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of RS. 10,00000/-(ten lac) with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned Judge National Accountability Court.

7. Writ Petition No.165/2018 is disposed of in the above terms. File be consigned to record after completion. SA/207/GB Bail granted.