IHC reserves verdict on NAB plea challenging Captain Safdar's bail

PML-N leader faces wrath for using mobile phone during hearing

ISLAMABAD: The Islamabad High Court (IHC) on Thursday reserved its judgment on the top graft-buster’s petition seeking dismissal of bail granted by an accountability court to deposed prime minister Nawaz Sharif’s son-in-law Captain (retd) Muhammad Safdar in the Avenfield properties case.

A division bench, comprising Justices Aamer Farooq and Mohsin Akhtar Kayani, reserved the verdict after National Accountability Bureau (NAB) prosecutor Sardar Muzaffar Abbasi and defence counsel Amjad Pervez concluded their arguments in the case.

On November 3, the NAB had approached the IHC, requesting it to set aside the accountability court’s order of October 9 by declaring it ‘illegal’ so that Safdar be remanded in judicial custody.

During the hearing, the NAB prosecutor said that the investigation officer had specifically been directed by the accountability court – conducting trial of the Sharif family – to execute non-bailable warrants for Safdar’s arrest, arguing that the warrants should not be treated as summons.

He said the October 9 judgment, which allowed Safdar’s release from custody on submission of Rs5 million surety bonds, was “absolutely not applicable”.

He said the only way to move forward after an arrest was to be released on bail, but the accountability court had no authority to grant it.

The two-member bench inquired from Abbasi whether the NAB always sought the court’s permission before arresting suspects.

Abbasi clarified that he was not requesting for remand of physical custody, instead a judicial one, adding that the NAB had made the same request before the trial court.



The anti-corruption watchdog’s petition to the IHC highlighted that Safdar had not appeared before the court on multiple hearings, avoided the process of law and tried to hamper the proceedings which were to be concluded within a period of six months.

Justice Kayani observed that the trial court had to ensure presence of the accused for hearing, but it was up to the investigation agency to keep the accused behind bars.

He said the accountability watchdog had the authority to arrest suspects at any given stage during investigation just as a suspect had the right to apply for pre-arrest bail, reminding the prosecutor that it was the NAB’s job to create such a scenario.

Interestingly, defence counsel Pervez countered the NAB prosecutor’s arguments while relying upon the same judgment (SCMR 2014) used by the prosecutor in his arguments to make the case.

Citing clauses of the judgment, he said, “If the accused appears or is brought before the court, he can execute bonds under Section 91 of the Criminal Procedure Code.”

“The purpose of issuing non-bailable warrants for arrest is to ensure that the accused attends the trial,” he said, adding that the purpose was to appear and answer the charge.

Justice Kayani remarked, “Bail is not required if someone appears or is brought before the court, undertakes to face trial and continues to appear before the court, which is currently happening in the case.”

When Pervez informed the court that he wanted to make some more submissions, Justice Kayani remarked that he had already provided enough substance.

Justice Kayani informed the prosecutor that if the anti-graft watchdog required custody of the accused it should ask its chairman to issue such orders.

 Safdar comes under fire for using cell phone

The hearing began with Justice Kayani chiding Safdar for using a mobile phone in the courtroom during hearing.

“Don’t you know you are sitting in a courtroom?” Justice Kayani reprimanded the Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz leader, who was caught in the act of using a mobile phone of a lawyer sitting next to him. “Are you in a park,” the judge added.

The judge then ordered for the phone to be taken away. Following the hearing, Safdar and the lawyer profusely apologized, but were directed to submit a written apology.

In the unconditional apology, the lawyer said he had given his phone to Safdar to save his number and the court noticed the act. While submitting unconditional apology, he requested the court to return his phone.

The phone was returned after a written apology was submitted and a fine of Rs1,000 paid.