Dar’s guarantor moves IHC against attachment order

Asks for setting aside accountability court directives to initiate process of attachment and sale of moveable property

ISLAMABAD: The man who stood surety for former finance minister Ishaq Dar has approached the Islamabad High Court (IHC) requesting it to set aside several orders of the accountability court to initiate the process of attachment and sale of his moveable property.

Petitioner Ali Ahmed Quddusi submitted surety amounting to Rs5 million to ensure that Dar, who has recently been declared a proclaimed offender, would appear before the court to face a National Accountability Court’s reference accusing him of amassing assets beyond his known sources of income



On December 11, Accountability Court Judge Muhammad Bashir ordered attaching moveable properties of surety-giver for failing to produce Dar. The order came after Quddusi failed to appear before the court.

On the previous hearing, the surety-giver was asked to explain why Dar was not appearing. He was also directed to present Dar before the court on December 14.

The court order had revealed that Quddusi “stood surety out of benevolence and accused is beyond his reach”. The court order had said he had not shown acceptable and reasonable causes why a penalty should not be paid by him, adding that he was not entitled to any leniency.

“He is directed to deposit the amount of Rs50,00,000, as he bound himself through a bond furnished u/s 91 CrPC, within three days," the December 11 order read.

In the petition, Quddusi’s counsel Raja Bilal Asif has requested the court to set aside the impugned orders passed on December 14, December 11, November 21 and all subsequent orders of the court to initiate the process of attachment and sale of Quddusi’s moveable property.



While seeking interim relief, the counsel has requested the court to suspend the orders and restrain them from issuing any warrant or attaching or selling any moveable property of the petitioner.

He said the orders were passed in complete oblivion and disregard of the provisions as contained in Section 514 of the CrPC 1898. He said imposition of penalty was uncalled-for and not legally justified. The court is expected to take up the case next week.