Ramzan Sugar Mills case: NAB challenges LHC's order of granting post-arrest bail to Hamza Shehbaz

The National Accountability Bureau (NAB) on Friday challenged the Lahore High Court (LHC) order granting post-arrest bail to the Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz (PML-N) leader Hamza Shehbaz in Ramzan Sugar Mills case.
NAB on Friday filed an appeal in the Supreme Court against the LHC order dated February 6, 2020.
It prayed to set aside the LHC order and cancel the post-arrest bail granted to Hamza Shehbaz.
According to NAB, it received a complaint that in 2015 the Punjab government released Rs 360 million for drainage scheme of local abadis in District Chiniot, which was misused and utilised for construction of 9-10 km waste water course of Ramzan Sugar Mills Ltd, Chiniot, fraudulently showing it as drainage scheme for local abadis.
On receipt of the complaint, the NAB initiated inquiry against Shehbaz Sharif, his sons including Hamza Shehbaz, Ramzan Sugar Mills, secretaries concerned, and others on the allegation of corruption and corrupt practices.
The investigation revealed that Shehbaz Sharif as CM Punjab misused his authority to provide illegal advantage to Ramzan Sugar Mills, his son Hamza Shehbaz being the CEO/director of the mills.
The LHC on 6th February, 2020 granted Hamza Shehbaz post-arrest bail.
The NAB contended that the LHC had made error by not considering the cardinal principle of criminal law as envisaged under the provision of Section 9(b) of the National Accountability Ordinance, 1999.
It further argued that the LHC erred in not appreciating the specific provision of ouster of jurisdiction (section 9(b), NAO) enacted in the special statute, wherein specifically it is promulgated that all offences of the NAO, 1999 shall be non-bailable.
The high court has not appreciated the settled proposition of the law that questions of facts cannot be raised in the constitutional jurisdiction, and that no court shall have jurisdiction to grant bail to any accused of any offence under the ordinance.
Seeking suspension of order by filing writ petition and by trying to achieve the object as set out in the appeal is not permissible under this jurisdiction as it come into action when there is no other adequate or efficacious remedy.
Therefore, the writ petition was not maintainable, the NAB argued.
NAB further submitted that the LHC had not appreciated the evidence available in record in its true perspective, which resulted in grave miscarriage of justice and had prejudiced the case of the prosecution.