JJVL CASE: NAB’S HASTE FAILED TO JUSTIFY ARRESTS

By Nasir Mahmood

KARACHI: The Sindh High Court while accepting the bail applications of Shoaib Warsi and Zuhair Siddiqui for rupees two million each in JJVL case against former petroleum minister Dr Asim Hussain and others have observed that undue haste was demonstrated by the NAB Authorities while obtaining custody of both the petitioners. According to detailed order by the SHC division bench, comprising Justice Aqeel Ahmed Abbasi and Justice Sadiq Hussain Bhatti, since the facts of both the petitions and the allegations as contained in NAB Reference No.19/2016 against both the petitioners are similar, therefore, by consent of learned counsel for the petitioners Noor Muhammad Dayo Special Prosecutor NAB duly assisted by the SIO Abdul Fatah, NAB, the above petitions are being disposed of by this common order. With reference to the Constitutional Petition No.D-1199/2016 petitioner Shoaib Warsi, Deputy Managing Director of SSGC was picked up on 26.08.2015 by the officials of Pakistan Rangers Sindh outside the head office of SSGC from his official. The order said that undue haste was demonstrated by the NAB Authorities while obtaining custody of both the petitioners from Pakistan Rangers, Sindh, after expiry of the period of ninety days detention of the petitioners under Section 11EEEE(1) of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, without any order by competent authority or the competent Court of jurisdiction. Whereas, prosecution has failed to produce any lawful authorization of inquiry and investigation by the competent authority in respect of allegations as contained in the investigation report and reference No.19/2016 filed before the Accountability Court. No sufficient incriminating material specifying the role of the petitioners relating to allegations of misuse of authority and corruption or the benefit derived by the petitioners or extended to M/s. JJVL has been produced by the NAB, therefore, the possibility of misuse of authority and the malafide on the part of NAB Authorities as alleged by the learned counsel for the petitioners cannot be ruled out.