| Case ID |
450bb5e5-44bd-4666-a7f7-1ed5ab7f5e06 |
| Body |
View case body. Login to View |
| Case Number |
D-3905 and 3906 of 2016 |
| Decision Date |
Jan 19, 2017 |
| Hearing Date |
Jan 13, 2017 |
| Decision |
The Sindh High Court dismissed the petition for post-arrest bail filed by Syed Manzar Abbas against the Chairman of the National Accountability Bureau and two others. The court evaluated the statutory grounds of delay under the Constitution of Pakistan and the National Accountability Ordinance. It concluded that the delay in the conclusion of the trial did not amount to a hardship case warranting bail. The court emphasized the necessity of an expeditious trial as mandated by the National Accountability Ordinance and referenced several precedents to support its decision. Consequently, the petition for bail was denied, and the court directed the Accountability Court No. III to proceed with the trial on a day-to-day basis without further adjourning on flimsy grounds, ensuring the case is decided within six months. |
| Summary |
In the landmark decision rendered on January 19, 2017, by the Sindh High Court, Constitution Petitions Nos. D-3905 and 3906 of 2016 were addressed with significant implications for the National Accountability Bureau (NAB) and the enforcement of the National Accountability Ordinance (NAO). The case, cited as 2017 SLD 2461 and 2017 YLR 1793, involved Syed Manzar Abbas, the petitioner, seeking post-arrest bail on statutory grounds of delay. Presided over by Justices Syed Muhammad Farooq Shah and Mohammed Karim Khan Agha, the court meticulously analyzed the applicability of constitutional provisions and the NAO in the context of NAB cases.
Central to the petitioner's argument was the claim of being held in custody for 18 months without trial completion, attributing the delay to factors beyond his control. He referenced the Constitution of Pakistan, specifically Sections 189 and 199, along with the National Accountability Ordinance, Sections 9(b) and 16(a), to substantiate his request for bail. The petitioner argued that the delay in his trial was not a result of his actions or negligence, thereby entitling him to statutory bail to prevent undue hardship.
Conversely, the respondents, represented by Muhammad Altaf, the Special Prosecutor for NAB, contested the bail on the grounds of the petitioner’s involvement in a significant corruption case, specifically a Housing scam that led to substantial financial losses for the exchequer. They argued that statutory bail on the basis of delay was not applicable in NAB cases, aligning with recent Supreme Court rulings that restrict bail in such high-stakes corruption cases to ensure the integrity and efficacy of the accountability mechanisms.
The court's decision pivoted on the interpretation of legal precedents and the specific provisions of the NAO. Despite acknowledging the prolonged custody period, the Sindh High Court determined that the circumstances did not constitute a hardship case deserving of bail under the NAO. The judgment emphasized the importance of expeditious trials in NAB cases, highlighting the specialized nature of the NAO designed to combat corruption and uphold public trust in accountability institutions.
Furthermore, the court referenced several notable cases, including Mir Shah Jehan Khetran v. NAB and Syed Mansoor Ali v. Chairman NAB, to delineate the boundaries of bail applicability in NAB contexts. The court underscored that while the right to a speedy trial is constitutionally protected, the unique parameters of the NAO necessitate a stringent approach to bail applications to prevent potential abuses and ensure the swift dispensation of justice in corruption-related offenses.
In its ruling, the Sindh High Court dismissed the bail petition, directing the Accountability Court No. III to conduct the trial without unwarranted delays and to aim for a resolution within six months. This decision reinforced the judiciary's commitment to maintaining a balance between the constitutional rights of the accused and the imperative of effective accountability measures against corruption.
The implications of this case are profound, setting a precedent for future bail applications in NAB cases. It delineates the judiciary's stance on limiting bail in high-profile corruption cases to prevent hindrances in accountability proceedings. The judgment serves as a critical reference point for legal practitioners and policymakers, emphasizing the necessity of upholding the integrity of judicial processes while safeguarding the rights enshrined in the Constitution of Pakistan.
In summary, the Sindh High Court's decision in Constitution Petitions Nos. D-3905 and 3906 of 2016 underscores the judiciary's role in enforcing accountability laws effectively. By denying bail in this instance, the court reinforced the principles of swift justice and the critical function of the National Accountability Bureau in combating corruption, thereby contributing to a more transparent and accountable governance framework in Pakistan. |
| Court |
Sindh High Court
|
| Entities Involved |
National Accountability Bureau,
NAB
|
| Judges |
SYED MUHAMMAD FAROOQ SHAH,
MOHAMMED KARIM KHAN AGHA
|
| Lawyers |
Farooq H. Naek,
Muhammad Altaf
|
| Petitioners |
Syed Manzar Abbas
|
| Respondents |
,
Chairman National Accountability Bureau
|
| Citations |
2017 SLD 2461,
2017 YLR 1793
|
| Other Citations |
Mir Shah Jehan Khetran v. NAB dated 12-12-2016,
Syed Mansoor Ali v. Chairman NAB PLD 2016 Sindh 41,
Nazir Hussain v. Ziaul Haq and others 1983 SCMR 72,
Muhammed Jahangir Badar v. State PLD 2003 SC 525,
Faisal Hussain Butt v. State 2009 SCMR 133,
Syed Rashid Hussain Rizvi v. NAB C.P. No. D-3624 of 2016,
NAB v. Bakhat Zameen C.P. No. 1542 of 2016 dated 26.8.2016,
Atta Abbas Zaidi v. Chairman NAB C.P. No. D-1865 of 2016 dated 3.10.2016,
Hamesh Khan v. NAB 2015 SCMR 1092
|
| Laws Involved |
Constitution of Pakistan, 1973,
National Accountability Ordinance, 1999
|
| Sections |
189,
199,
9(b),
16(a)
|