ISLAMABAD: The Federal Constitutional Court (FCC) dismissed Bushra Bibi’s petition seeking suspension of her sentence in the £190 million Al-Qadir Trust case, directing her counsel to extend full assistance to the Islamabad High Court (IHC) in the hearing of the main appeal.
A two-member FCC bench, headed by Chief Justice Amin-ud-Din Khan and comprising Justice Ali Baqar Najafi, heard an application filed by Bushra Bibi, wife of Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) founder Imran Khan, on Wednesday. The bench observed: “We find no sufficient ground warranting interference with the April 30, 2026, IHC order at this stage.”
The FCC asked Bushra Bibi’s counsel to extend full assistance to the [Islamabad] High Court in the hearing of the main appeal, whereafter NAB shall be equally obligated to advance its arguments without seeking unwarranted adjournments.
The Court order stated that the appellant’s assertion that the appeal involves a voluminous record necessitating elaborate arguments does not, by itself, furnish sufficient justification for interference with the impugned order.
It found no sufficient ground warranting interference with the IHC order at this stage, and expected “the High Court shall endeavour to decide the main appeal, affording both sides adequate opportunity of hearing while discouraging unnecessary adjournments. Consequently, the instant appeal is dismissed.”
Bushra, along with Imran, had initially moved the Islamabad High Court for the suspension of her sentence in July last year. However, their request was dismissed by the IHC in April 2026, observing that their appeals against their convictions had already been fixed for hearing.
Barrister Salman Safdar, therefore, filed an application before the FCC on September 17, 26, citing a rapidly deteriorating ocular condition that threatened the appellant’s remaining eyesight.
Through the instant appeal filed under section 32-A of the National Accountability Ordinance, 1999, the appellant has assailed the order dated 30.04.2026 passed by the Islamabad High Court in C.M. No.340/2025 in Criminal Appeal No.64/2025, whereby her application under section 426 read with section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 (Cr.P.C.), seeking suspension of the sentence awarded by the Judge, Accountability Court No.1, Islamabad, vide judgment dated 17.01.2025, pending final adjudication of the appeal, was dismissed.
During the proceedings, Barrister Salman contended that the application for suspension of sentence remained pending on account of successive adjournments sought by the National Accountability Bureau (NAB), which were allowed by the High Court. During its pendency, the main appeal was also fixed for hearing; however, the application for suspension of sentence was eventually dismissed vide the impugned order dated 30.04.2026.
The counsel further submitted that the appeal involves a voluminous record and intricate questions requiring elaborate arguments and considerable time for adjudication. It is contended that the precedents of Supreme Court relied upon by the High Court are distinguishable on facts and have, therefore, been erroneously applied.
Barrister Safdar, while placing reliance upon Chairman, National Accountability Bureau, Islamabad vs Mian Muhammad Nawaz Sharif and others (PLD 2019 SC 445), maintained that mere fixation of the main appeal for hearing does not constitute an absolute legal impediment to the suspension of sentence, nor does it dispense with the Court’s obligation to examine the application on its own merits in accordance with the settled principles governing the exercise of discretion under section 426, CrPC.
The Court, after hearing the appellant’s counsel and examining the impugned order, noted that the High Court, without entering into the merits of the application under section 426, CrPC, declined suspension of sentence principally on the ground that the main appeal had already been fixed for hearing and counsel for the appellant was not extending the requisite assistance towards its adjudication. It also observed that the record further reflects that the appeal, initially fixed for 30.04.2026, was subsequently adjourned to 07.05.2026 and thereafter to 05.10.2026.
The FCC also noted that the present criminal appeal was barred by 61 days, for which the appellant had sought condonation of delay.
The explanation furnished, particularly the appellant’s incarceration at Central Jail, Adiala, Rawalpindi, constituted sufficient cause warranting condonation, the FCC observed while condoning the delay of 61 days in filing the appeal.
Copyright Business Recorder, 2026
Comments