Interim relief: Why return to capital, asks court

IHC reserves verdict on petitions filed by a former federal minister and his wife seeking protective bail


Rizwan Shehzad April 11, 2017
IHC reserves verdict on petitions filed by a former federal minister and his wife seeking protective bail. PHOTO: EXPRESS/FILE

ISLAMABAD: The Islamabad High Court on Monday reserved its verdict on petitions filed by a former federal minister and his wife seeking protective bail in a corruption reference against them.

A division bench comprising Justice Aamer Farooq and Justice Miangul Hassan Aurangzeb reserved the order after the parties concluded their arguments on the question whether relief could be granted to any accused when they did not appear before the court.

Former federal communications minister Arbab Alamgir and his wife former MNA Asma Arbab had filed a petition in the IHC through their counsel Barrister Masroor Shah seeking protective bail or a restraining order against NAB for a few days till they appeared before the relevant court or investigation body after returning to Pakistan from the UAE.

Shah said that the couple was ready to join an inquiry against them and were scheduled to land in the federal capital on April 15. He presented information regarding their arrival times and requested the court to restrain NAB from harassing and arresting the petitioners till the time they surrender before the court.

When the case was taken up on Monday, Justice Farooq asked why the petitioners chose Islamabad as the place in Pakistan to return when an inquiry against them was pending in Peshawar.

“We are concerned why Islamabad has been  selected [as the venue to return]. Would it not be competent to reach [out] to the provincial court [in Peshawar],” he said, further asking whether the IHC was approached on the pretext that it was ‘lenient’ in granting protection.

Published in The Express Tribune, April 11th, 2017.

COMMENTS

Replying to X

Comments are moderated and generally will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive.

For more information, please see our Comments FAQ