‘No proof of assets beyond means attached with reference’

 The Lahore High Court (LHC) on Saturday issued detailed judge­ment on petition of Opposition Leader in National Assembly Shehbaz Sharif in money laun­dering case.

In its 27-page detailed verdict, the three-member bench head­ed by Justice Ali Baqar Najafi ob­served that the matter was re­ferred to them as referee judges after a two-member bench (Jus­tice Sardar Muhammad Sarfraz Dogar and Justice Asjad Javaid Ghural) could not reach to a con­sensus in the matter.

The bench held that after pur­sual of the two different orders,

  three points of dissent were found. “ Whether the petition­er was entitled to bail in the reference, whether he was entitled to bail on medical grounds and whether he was entitled to bail on ground of delay in conclusion of trial, “ it added.

The bench noted that as per Supreme Court judgements, medical ground could not be accepted as a claim rather it was required that a medical board should be set up to as­certain ailment and availabil­ity of its treatment inside the jail. The bench observed that no relief could be extended on medical ground as no report of medical board is available in the file. The bench further noted that there was no re­port of trial court about delay in conclusion of trial. There­fore, we are of opinion that case of petitioner for grant of bail on medical ground or de­lay in conclusion of trial is not made out and we side with Justice Asjad Javaid Ghural in the matter, it added.

While discussing grant of bail on merit, the bench not­ed that the prosecution had claimed that the petition­er being a public office hold­er had amassed money and built assets on the name of his dependents (Benamidars) through fictitious teleghraph­ic transfers (FTTs). The prose­cution had also provided a list of assets and inadequate re­sources, disclosed by the pe­titioner and his family mem­bers, it added.

However, the bench noted that it could not accept the prosecution’s case as a gos­pel truth in the absence of any property purchased or owned in the personal name of the petitioner, in the ab­sence of direct proof that his family members were his de­pendents and in the absence of direct proof that the money came through FTTs in his ac­count as some crime proceed or money laundering.

The bench further remarked that it was deciding a bail mat­ter and not the appeal so as to appraise the entire evidence which was yet to be produced. The prosecution has yet to es­tablish its case before the tri­al court on the basis of 110 witnesses. There is a possi­bility that the petitioner may be convicted and equal is the chance that he may be acquit­ted, it added.

It observed that in the event of acquittal, the retribution of the time he (petitioner) spent behind the bar would not be possible. The bench observed that it was in agreement with Justice Sardar Muhammad Sarfraz Dogar on the issue, while granting bail to Shehbaz Sharif in the reference. The bench directed Shehbaz Shar­if for submitting two surety bonds of Rs 5 million for the purpose.

According to the detailed verdict, NAB prosecutor ad­mitted before the Lahore High Court that the petitioner did not receive any kickbacks. The Lahore High Court noted that the court did not accept the version of prosecution as irre­futable. Also, the Lahore High Court confirmed grant of bail on merit to Shehbaz Sharif in the detailed order. “We have reached to the conclusion that the case of the petitioner for the grant of post arrest bail is made out.”

“The prosecution has yet to establish its case before the trial court on the basis of 110 witnesses. There is a possi­bility that the petitioner may be convicted and equal is the chance that he may be acquit­ted. In the event of acquittal the retribution of the time he spent behind the bar will not be possible.”

“Interestingly, the NAB has categorically admitted be­fore us that petitioner is not alleged to have received any kickbacks or any such ill-got­ten money in return to a fa­vour extended to someone to build up the assets in the name of his family.” Similar­ly, No proof of assets beyond means was attached with ref­erence. Regarding Benami transaction, “To prove this, the evidence should be confi­dence inspiring.” In the light of case of Brig (Retd) Imtiaz Ahmed, the law upholds that TTs in Income Tax Returns are valid In Aleem Khan case, the bail was granted by court on the basis of mentioning prop­erty in income tax returns.