Ayan Ali gets no relief in money-laundering case

LAHORE:

Lahore High Court dismissed last week a bail application by model Ayan Ali who is accused of money laundering.

She is now left with the option of seeking bail from the Supreme Court. Her counsel had told the court she was a woman of honour. He said customs authorities had implicated her in a false case. He said customs authorities had illegally implicated her in a money-laundering case.

The lawyer said customs officials had arrested her before her getting a boarding card or an exit stamp on her passport. She did not fall under the definition of a traveller at the time of her arrest. Therefore, he said, the money-laundering case could not be registered against her.

The lawyer requested the court to stay proceedings against her before a customs court and grant her bail.

On behalf of customs authorities, a prosecutor submitted that she had been arrested under Section 7 of the Customs Act. He said the relevant court had already dismissed her bail application. He said customs officials had arrested the model from the airport’s VIP lounge. Ali was arrested from Islamabad’s Benazir Bhutto International Airport on March 14.

State land

The LHC ordered revenue authorities last week to take back 800 kanals of state land in Bahawalpur from Hamza Sugar Mills and recover the penalty proposed by a Board of Revenue member for using the land for several years.

Justice Ibadur Rehman Lodhi issued the order while dismissing a petition by the HSM requesting the court to declare the possession legal.

The petitioners had tried to justify the possession saying that the state land, measuring 800 kanals in Mohal Chak 1/P, Khanpur tehsil, Rahim Yar Khan district, adjacent to Hamza Sugar Mills was barren and uncultivable. They said they had invested a large amount to develop the land. The petitioner had also challenged the trial court’s assessment of market value and imposition of 10 per cent surcharge to be recovered from the mills. Law officers said the matter had been taken to a court which had referred the matter to a senior member of the Board of Revenue with the consent of both parties. The senior member had furnished a report assessing the market value of the land, but after going through the report, the petitioner had.

The court had then declared that an agreement could not be concluded and the plaintiff remained in illegal and unauthorised occupation of the land. The court also observed that the petitioner wanted to continue possession of the land and did not intend to pay the penalty or compensation for unauthorised occupation of state land. The court dismissed the petition and allowed revenue authorities to take back the land and recover the penalty assessed by the revenue authorities, from the plaintiff, as arrears of land revenue.

Published in The Express Tribune, July 6^th, 2015.