ISLAMABAD       -           National Accountability Bureau (NAB) Thursday filed an appeal before the Supreme Court of Pakistan requesting the court to set aside the Lahore High Court (LHC) order to grant bail to Yousaf Abbas nephew of former Prime Minister Nawaf Sharif in Chaudhry Sugar Mills Limited (CSML) case.

The NAB Additional Prosecutor General moved the appeal under Article 185(3) of Constitution against the LHC judgment dated 18-02-2020 to cancel Yousaf Abbas Sharif’s post arrest bail

In the appeal, the NAB maintained that there is every likelihood that Yousaf Sharif being an influential person would harass the witness, tamper with the prosecution evidence and/or might abscond to hamper the proceedings against him. It said that the co-accused Maryam Nawaz Sharif and his family members tried to fled/abscond from the country.

The appeal said that LHC observation that Yousaf Sharif (Respondent No.1) has not withdrawn any amount from the account of Ch Sugar Mills, while on the other hand the record reveals that Rs 1.33 billion were transferred from the account of CSML to his personal account which fact has not been appreciated by the LHC in its true perspective, which resulted in grave miscarriage of justice and has prejudiced the case of the prosecution.

The accused Yousaf was arrested. Being aggrieved of his arrest he filed a writ petition in the LHC for bail, which was granted through order 18-02-2020.

The NAB Additional Prosecutor contended that the writ petition instituted on the touchstone of fundamental rights did not aver any hardship in any manner.

He argued that the High Court erred in not appreciating the specific provision of ouster of jurisdiction (Section 9(b) of NAO) enacted in the Special Statute wherein specifically it is promulgated that all offences of NAO, 1999 shall be non-bailable, and not withstanding anything contained in Section 426, 491, 497, 498, and 561-A or any other provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 or any law for the time being, not court shall have jurisdiction to grant bail to any accused of any offence under the NAB Ordinance.

He also said that the LHC erred to appreciate that the provisions under Section 9(a) read with Section 14(c) of National Accountability Ordinance, 1999 entail that an objective appreciation of the prosecution evidence had to be evaluated and the prosecution succeeded in establishing culpability upon the Respondent No.1.