ISLAMABAD - The Supreme Court of Pakistan Tuesday directed the National Accountability Bureau (NAB) to submit the details of cases pending before the Accountability Court, Lahore, which is hearing Opposition Leader in Punjab Assembly Hamza Shahbaz Sharif’s cases.
A three-member bench of the apex court headed by Justice Mushir Alam, conducted hearing of Hamza’s application for early hearing of his post-arrest bail petition. During the hearing, the bench asked from the NAB Special Prosecutor General that how many cases are pending before the Accountability Court, Lahore. Justice Yahya Afridi questioned that when Hamza Shehbaz’s case would be heard. He stated that the apex court had directed the Accountability Courts that trial should be conducted on daily basis. He directed the SPG to provide all these details on the next hearing and adjourned the case for indefinite period.
Hamza Shehbaz was arrested in Ramazan Sugar Mills scam. He is behind the bars for the last 18 months.
Hamza’s counsel pleaded that the NAB had filed a reference against him, which comprises voluminous record and 110 proposed prosecution witnesses (PW) out which only three PW have recorded their statements.
A division bench of the Lahore High Court (LHC) on February 6, 2020, had extended interim bail to Hamza Shahbaz in Ramazan Sugar Mills corruption case. The NAB on March 21, 2020 had approached the Supreme Court to cancel the PML-N leader bail.
The NAB submitted that the division bench of the LHC has fallen an error by not considering the cardinal principles of criminal law as envisaged under the provisions of Section (9) (b) NAO, 1999.
It further submitted that the high court has not appreciated the evidence available on record in its true perspective which resulted in grave miscarriage of justice and has prejudiced the case of the prosecution. It prayed the apex court to grant leave to appeal against the order passed on February 6, 2020 passed by the LHC.
The NAB questioned as to whether the LHC erred in not considering that the constitutional petition was neither maintainable nor competent and suffered from legal infirmities hence not proceed able which fact was duly apprised during the hearing but not finding to that extent was given by the court.