Maryam Nawaz granted bail in Chaudhry Sugar Mills case

LHC's two-judge bench orders release of former PM's daughter

LAHORE: The Lahore High Court (LHC) has granted bail to Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz (PML-N) Vice President Maryam Nawaz in the Chaudhry Sugar Mills (CSM) case.

A division bench of the LHC, headed by Justice Ali Baqar Najafi, on Monday unveiled its order that was reserved on October 31 after hearing Maryam’s petition for an interim bail in the case.

Maryam, who has been in the National Accountability Bureau (NAB) custody since her arrest on August 8, had sought immediate bail on humanitarian basis, saying she wanted to look after her ailing father – former premier Nawaz Sharif – who is currently hospitalized.

NAB claimed that she aided and abetted co-accused persons – Nawaz and others – in acquiring and laundering funds, which, it alleged, were disproportionate to the known sources of income of the former PM.  It accused Maryam of being a beneficiary of the assets.

On Monday, the bench ordered her release against two surety bonds of Rs10 million each. The court also ordered her to deposit an amount of Rs70 million with the LHC deputy registrar (judicial) – to establish her bona fide – while also surrendering her passport.



The order said the petitioner had filed application for an interim bail so as to see her ailing father.

“We have been informed by the state that she is accompanying her father in the hospital to look after his health, therefore, prayer to the extent of grant of interim bail has not been pressed by the learned counsel for the petitioner.”

It said the petitioner also sought bail on the ground that she is a woman and referred to the judgment given in case titled “Miss Shahla Raza Vs The State” reported as 1991 MLD 1814 and case titled “Mst Afsar Bibi Vs The State” reported as 2005 PCrLJ 164.

“In these cases, it was held that grant of bail to a woman is also discretionary but the courts have always leaned towards such exercise; therefore, grant of bail to a woman should be a rule and discretion must be exercised in her favour in the absence of compelling circumstances disentitling her to grant of bail.

“In the present case, the exceptional circumstances do not appear to attract in favour of the prosecution, since she has neither absconded nor obstructed the process of law,” it added.

The bench noted that in another case titled ‘Zohra Khanum vs The State’, the Supreme Court had held that showing the common intention/abetment by a woman even in a murder case required further probe, therefore, the bail was granted.

“Besides, in the judgment titled ‘Chairman, National Accountability Bureau, Islamabad through Prosecutor General Accountability, Islamabad Vs Mian Muhammad Nawaz Sharif and 2 others’ reported …. it was already observed that the petitioner being a woman was rightly granted to concession of bail.”

Referring to Supreme Court’s July 28, 2017 order in the Panama Papers case, the bench noted that the SC had directed NAB Rawalpindi/Islamabad to file reference on basis of material collected and referred to by a joint investigation team (JIT) in its report.

It said the said reference was to be filed against the petitioner and others in respect of Avenfield properties in UK on the basis of statements of Sheikh Saeed, Musa Ghani, Kashif Masood Qazi, Javaid Kiyani and Saeed Ahmed, made against the petitioner leading to the acquisition of assets beyond the known sources of income. “Notably, the CSM was not mentioned anywhere,” it said.

The order said prima-facie, the name of the petitioner was not exposed directly to suggest that she actively participated, connived, abetted or aided to acquire assets disproportionate to the known sources of income since no connection of the petitioner was established with said foreign nationals in order to persuade them to invest in the CSM to attract the provisions of NAO, 1999 & AMLA 2010.

The bench noted that it has not been denied by either party that during the proceedings in the Panama case, the CSM never remained a subject of discussion.

“Therefore, in our considered view NAB can possibly probe and investigate into the matter and the question of double jeopardy would not prime facie arise in favour of the petitioner,” it said.

 

 

The verdict

[sc name="Maryam Nawaz Sharifi"]