2005 PLP 1291 (SCMR)
NATIONAL ACCOUNTABILITY BUREAU — Petitioner Versus KHALID MASOOD and another — Respondents
| Citation | 2005 PLP 1291 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Rana Bhagwandas and Mian Muhammad Ajmal, JJ |
| Parties | NATIONAL ACCOUNTABILITY BUREAU — Petitioner Versus KHALID MASOOD and another — Respondents |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2005 PLP 1291 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2005 PLP 1291 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Rana Bhagwandas and Mian Muhammad Ajmal, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2005 PLP 1291 (SCMR) (NATIONAL ACCOUNTABILITY BUREAU — Petitioner Versus KHALID MASOOD and another — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Akhlaq Ahmed Siddiqui for Petitioner (in both petitions).
- Nemo for Respondents.
- 4. On perusal of the record, we are not inclined to agree with the submissions of the learned Advocate-on-Record as the order, on the face of it, is not only well-reasoned but elaborate and exhaustive one taking into consideration all the essential aspects of the case in the exercise of jurisdiction at bail stage. Furthermore, considerations for cancellation of bail are altogether different and distinct from considerations for grant of bail. No exceptional circumstances have been shown to exist for seeking extraordinary indulgence of this Court to deprive the citizens of their liberty, which is not stated to have been misused after passing of the impugned order by the High Court. In any event, no question of law of public importance is spelt out in the circumstances and there is no ground for the grant of leave, which is accordingly refused and petitions dismissed.
Judgment & Decree
RANA BHAGWANDAS, J.
Petitioner NAB, through the above said petitions seeks cancellation of bail granted to respondents-Khalid Masood and Agha Tariq by the High Court of Sindh vide order dated 27-11-2002 in Reference No.24 of 2002, filed before the Accountability Court of Karachi.
2. Precisely stated, charge against both the respondents appears to be that, in connivance with each other and other absconding co-accused, they caused huge monetary loss to the public exchequer by abuse of officials position.
3. Learned counsel stated at the Bar that both the respondents were admitted to interim bail vide order, dated 27-7-2002, which was confirmed as such through the impugned order. According to him, it is a very long order touching the merits of evidence. Main grievance of the learned counsel appears to be that there is a complete embargo on the power of the High Court to grant bail in cases referred under the NAB Ordinance but he appears to be oblivious of the case reported as Khan Asfandyar Wali v. Federation of Pakistan PLD 2001 SC 607 consistently followed in subsequent cases laying down that High Court can always grant relief in appropriate cases in the exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution. It seems that applications for bail were moved before the High Court in terms of section 497, Cr.P.C. but while passing impugned order, High Court has clarified that the Constitutional jurisdiction was being exercised within the contemplation of Article
199. Learned counsel further submitted that the impugned order is neither a reasoned order nor speaking one, therefore, it is liable to be upset by this Court.
4. On perusal of the record, we are not inclined to agree with the submissions of the learned Advocate-on-Record as the order, on the face of it, is not only well-reasoned but elaborate and exhaustive one taking into consideration all the essential aspects of the case in the exercise of jurisdiction at bail stage. Furthermore, considerations for cancellation of bail are altogether different and distinct from considerations for grant of bail. No exceptional circumstances have been shown to exist for seeking extraordinary indulgence of this Court to deprive the citizens of their liberty, which is not stated to have been misused after passing of the impugned order by the High Court. In any event, no question of law of public importance is spelt out in the circumstances and there is no ground for the grant of leave, which is accordingly refused and petitions dismissed. N.H.Q./N-45/S Leave refused.