Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz Vice President Maryam Nawaz on Wednesday withdrew her petition from Lahore High Court's (LHC) division bench seeking the return of her passport to travel to Saudi Arabia for performing Umrah.
This was the fourth division bench constituted after three division benches earlier recused from hearing her plea.
As the division bench started the proceedings today, Maryam's counsel, Advocate Amjad Pervez, appeared on the rostrum and withdrew the petition saying that he had instructions from Maryam to withdraw the petition.
“We will contest another petition she had filed earlier for seeking one-time permission to travel abroad for six weeks for the purpose of extra care of Mian Nawaz Sharif,” the counsel prayed.
However, the bench headed by Justice Ali Baqar Najafi dismissed the petition as withdrawn. The second member of the bench was Justice Sardar Ahmad Naeem.
On April 21, the first division bench headed by Justice Syed Shahbaz Ali Rizvi recused from hearing Maryam’s plea on the ground that the relevant bench had already heard it and granted her post-arrest bail. The second member of that bench was Justice Anwaarul Haq Pannu.
On April 26, the second division bench, headed by Justice Ali Baqar Najafi, recused from hearing her plea saying his colleague judge (the second member of this bench) Justice Farooq Haider is not willing to hear this matter owing to some personal reason.
On the same day, another division bench, led by Justice Ali Baqar Najafi, recused from hearing the matter and the second member was Justice Asjad Javed Ghural.
As proceedings commenced, Justice Najafi remarked that his colleague Justice Ghural is not willing to hear this petition owing to some personal reasons.
Later a fourth division bench, led by Justice Najafi, was constituted and this time the second member of this bench was Justice Sardar Ahmad Naeem.
Petitioner sought her passport
The PML-N leader in her petition had requested the court to pass orders to the deputy registrar to return her passport which she had surrendered before him complying with LHC’s order on October 31, 2019.
The petitioner had been granted post-arrest bail and was required to submit her passport before the authority.
Read More: LHC bench refuses to hear Maryam’s plea for passport
In her plea, Maryam implored that freedom of movement was a fundamental right guaranteed by the Constitution, adding, that the condition imposed through the order was tantamount to the deprivation of her rights.
“There is settled law that mere registration of a case or institution of criminal proceedings does not automatically imply that the accused should be disallowed to move outside Pakistan,” she said, adding that registration of a criminal case would not be a ground for depriving a citizen of the exercise of his or her constitutional right.
“The condition as to surrender of a passport is alien to statutory requirements to enlarge an accused on bail, had it been the intention of the legislature then it would have made the corresponding provisions in the Code of Criminal Procedure 18989 or any other special enactments for the trial of offences.”
She stated that even the NAO 1999 does not contain any provision restricting an accused’s right to travel abroad unlike other special laws such as the Anti-Terrorism Act 1997 or Ordinance IX of 1984.
Shedding light on her case, she implored that as per the report submitted by the prosecution at that time in the instant case, a suspicious transaction report (STR) was forwarded to the Chairman NAB on January 12, 2018, following which an inquiry was initiated against her on November 14, 2018.
Consequently, Maryam was arrested in the aforementioned inquiry on August 8, 2019, and remained on physical remand with the investigation agency for 48 days. Then the petitioner was granted a post-arrest bail on October 31, 2019. She contended that since the inquiry started against her, no reference has been filed before any court by the prosecution against her.
COMMENTS (4)
Comments are moderated and generally will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive.
For more information, please see our Comments FAQ