Muhammad Sohail (Petitioner) VS Fed. of Pakistan and Others (Respondent)

8l

IN THE HIGH COURT OF S INDH AT I(ARACHI

Present Mr I ttstice Mohammad Karim Kh an Asha Mn I usttce Zulfi tl ar Ali Sansi it

C.P. No.D-2975 of 20-1.9

Pe tr troner Zet'sh.rtr v Fetleratton of Pakrstan and others through Ml r\I.uer Il.rza Natlr'r, Aclvoc.-tte llespontlents/ State NAts through Mr Shahbaz Sahotra, Special Prosecutor NAB assrsted by Mr. Omair, I O'

C.P. No.D-3560 of 2019

[)etttroner Muhamnr.rcl Soharl v Federatron of Pakistan and otlrt'rs thtough M/s Ha rcler Waheecl and Ilehan Kav.rr-tt, Arlvocates

Ilcsponcler-rts/ Sta te NAtt through Mr Shahbaz Sahotra, Special i Prosecutot NAB assistecl hy Mr. Umair, I O' C.l'. No.D-3869 of 2019

I'etitroners W.rseetn Akhtar 'I hebtr and others v Federation of Pakrstau and others through M/ s Raj Ali Wahid I(unwar ar-rtl Raghrb Iblahim Juneio, Advocates' Res 1'r or-rd en ts/ S ta te NAII through Mr Sl-rahbaz Sahotra, Special Prost'cutor NA lJ .lssrstetl by Mr Umalr, ['O' C.P. No.D-4312 of 2O-19

I)etrtroner Shaljecl ltratn Merton v. Chairmatr NAll and othels thrr',ugh M/s Munrr A- Malil<, Shamatl Srkantlar arrd Salman Mirza, Acivoc.rtes

llespor-rdents/State N Atl ancl others through Mr' Shahbaz Sahotra' Spt'cral Prosecutor NAB arssisted by Mr' Umair, I O' C.I'. No.D-4702 of. 2019

) Petr troner Agh.r Ahsan tl.rrough M/s, Rai Ali Wahid Kunwar .u'rtl [iaghrb Ibralrirn Iuncio, Advocatt's

Ilesponclents/ Sta te t'r.-AIl thlor-rgh Mr Shahbaz Sahotra, Specral ', Mr. Umair, I'O' Prosecutot' NAB assisted by

o1 bt-

C.P. No.D-4703 of 2019.

Petitioner Subhan through M/s. Rai Ali Wahid Kunwar and Ragtrib Ibrahirn Juneio, Advocates.

Ilesponclents/ State NAB through Mr. Shahbaz Sahotra, Special l Prosecutor NAB assistecl by Mr. Umair, I.O.

C.P. No.D-8032 of 2019.

I)ctitioners Saclaf Sharjeel antl others througl.r M/ s Raj Ali Wahiri Kunwar' anri Itaghib Ibrahim Junejo, Aclvocates.

Ilespondents/ State NAB anti others tllrough Mr. Shahbaz Sahotra, Special Prosecutor NAB assisted by Mr. Umair, I.O,

C.P. No.D-1697 of 2020

Petitioner Izhar Hussain through Mr. Ahmed Masud, Advocate I Respondents/ State Federation of Pakistan ancl others through Mr' Shahbaz Sahotra, Special Prosecutor NAB assisted by Mr, Umair, I.O.

Dates of heanng: 18.08.2020 and 19.08'2020.

Date of announcement: 79.08.2020.

ORDER

Mohammad l(arim I(han Agha, |'- Petitioners Sharjeel Inam Memon' Mst. Saclaf Sharieel, Ms. Zeenat Inam Memon, Zeeshan, Subhan, Agha Ahsan' shaukat Ati Thebo and wassem Aktar Thebo have all sought confirmation of the inter itn pre arrest bail which was grantecl to thern earlier b1, this court whereas pe.titioners lzhar. Llussairl alrLl Muhllnmecl Sol-rail have applietl for post arrest bail. since all tl-rese petitions arise out of the same reference we shall decide the sarne tlrrough this common order.

2.The brief facts of the case al.e that petitioner sharjeel Inarn Memon has been accused under S.9 of the National Accountability Ordinance 1999 (NAO) for offences of corruption ancl corrupt practices on account of having assets beyond his kr-rown sources of income which he was not able to account for and hence the National Accountability I3ur eau (NAB) througl.r its chairman filed Reference

I

Z

No.15 of 2019 State V Sharjeel Inam Memon and 11 others. The 10 other accusecl arrayed in the Reference were in essence alleged to be accomplices, aiders ancl abettors ancl/or benamitlar holclers of assets which actually belonged to petitiorrer Sharjeel hnan Memon and hacl been purchasecl out of monies ) acquirerl bv petitioner Sharleel Memon through corruption.

3.According to the reference the petitioner Sharieel Inam Memon had acquirerJ assets of approx RS 2.2 Billion through corruPt practices which he was unable to account for. Such assets essentially tliviclecl into 5 parts;

Properties in the nar-ne of petitioner sharjeel Inam Memon and his wife petiiioner No.2 Mst Saclaf Sharjeel and his mother petitioner No.3 Zeenat Inarn Memon as set out in the table below;

S# I'ropel ty Year of Cost price Cost Owner purchas shown in actually c nomination paid (Rs.)

t( 1 2 x Flat No.T2-307 2016 s0,000,000 50,000,000 Sharjeel Inam (1a8s sq, Ft) cR -t ['enorma Duhai 2 Villa No.24, 2013 98,900,000 98,900,000 Saclaf Sharjeel Meadows-9 Dubai

Office at 30.06.18 21,000,000 21,000,000 Sadaf Sharjeel Ilurlington Tower f)ubai 4 30.06.1u 300,000 300,000 Sharjeel Inam Jewelry

5 Furniture & 30.06.18 3,000,000 3,000,000 Sharjeel Irram riltlryl S 6 Iien tal Agricultural 30.06.18 3,200,000 3,200,000 Sharjeel Inam lancl - Dt posit 'l arrc{o Allahyar

7 Personal weapons 30.06.18 2,500,000 2,500,000 Sharjeel It"ram 3,000,000 gadaf Sharjeel il. International 2011 3,000,000 Culf Group (wife)

9.IGP Business 2071 3,000,000 3,000,000 Zeenat Inam Services (mother)

t0 Motor Vehicle 30.06..i8 5,000,000 5,000,000 Zeenat Inam Purchased in the name of Son in Dubai ll jewelry 10,000 30.06.18 5,000,000 5,000,000 Zeenat Inam Crarns

12.I-lousel-rold Effect 30.06.1u 500,000 500,000 Zeenat Inanl 13 Personal ltem 30.06.18 1,000,000 1,000,000 Zeenat Lnam

gq

14 T'r'rze Bonc{s 30.06.1 ,500,000 1,500,000 Zeenat Inam 15 Bunglow No.3-B/1, 2009 to 25,617,348 Shar;eel Inam 29th Street, 2079 (verrfred) Khayabar-r-e- Sharnsheer phase- ) V, DHA Karacht (mortgage amount ard) 1.6 Bungalow 200U to 39,427,677 Sharleel Inam No 42/2,28n 2019 (venfred) Street, Khayaban-e- ,Vlulahrcl rrr phase- V, DHA K.rrdchr (nrortgage amount P artl) 77 r\gucultu la I lancl 20.07.76 7,00,000 28,383,750 Zeenat Inam nleasururg acres (velrfred) 23 ghuntas sr tuaterl rn Dch Dah; Warii 'l'aluka/ Drsl.rrct H erabad I8 Agrrculhr-rral lanel 26 08.76 9,37,725 28,823,750 Zeenat Inam rleasuring 26 acres (verrfied) 31 ghuntas sttua lerl rn Deh Dahwadr .| i,'l-aluka/ Drstrrct erabacl

L

19 AglrculLural la rrtl 19 t0 16 459,375 41,52t,250 Zee.nat h-ram lneaslll lllg 2c) acres (venfrecl) l3 ghur.rtas srtuated rrr Deh Dahwadr l aluka/ I)rsh ict

llv!'l eral-,atl Zeenat Inam 20 Agr rcultural land 10.0.1 I7 260,000 e,000,000 nleasurrng 06 acles (verrfrecl) 02 ghuntas srLLla teL{ ur Deh Rahoki, Taluka/ Drstrict H cleraba c1 2'l Agncultural lancl 16 05 14 1,12,00,000 56,000,000 Sharleel Inam nreasurrng 56-01 (vcnfreci) acres srttlaterl in Deh Ilahookr, 'fa;:pa A, 131'.1,, Qarser, Taluka & [)rs tr rct Flyelerabacl

22 Agncultural land 09 04.74 s,00,000 20,000,000 Shar;eel Inam measuring 4-12 (verifred) acres situa tecl tu I)eh Ilarchani, 'laluka,/ Drstrrct [lyclerabacl

Lancl measurirtg 21 2009- 15,080,000 920,O00 Sha4eel Inam acres, 20 Ghunta & 2010 lancl) + Constructrort cost 7,2eO,000

gi

of House in (constructio Nagarparkar n cost).

Plot No.116 77.09.74 50,00,000 100,000,000 Zeenat Inam measuirng 2000 Sq (verified) Ycls. in Khayabarr- e-Qasim Phase-

) VIII, DHA.

25 Plot No.118/l & 17.09.74 it1,00,000 110,000,000 Zeenat lnam 118/ II measuirng (verified) 1000 Sq. Yds. in Kl'rayaL-ran-e-Qasim Phase-VIII, DHA.

2 That petitioner No.3 Mst Zeenat Inam t[-re mother of petitioner Sharjeel Inarn Memon was the benarnidar holder of land for Petitioner Sharjeel Inarn Memon as set out below;

S lletails of Properties I'urpose Date of Actual consideration # Acquisition I 19-23 Acres situated in Agricultur 26.07.16 Rs.28,383,750 Deh Daliwadi al lar.rti 'l alu ka/ District

Hyrlerabcl I 2 26-31 Acres situated in Agricultur 26.08.16 Rs.38,823,750 Deh Daliwadi al lanrl f Taluka/Dish'ict H delabaci 3 29-13 Acles situated in Agricultur 19.10.16 11s.42,52"1,250 [)eh Daliwarli al land 'falu ka/ Distr ict Hyderabad.

4 6-02 Acres situatecl in Agricultur 10.04.77 Rs.9,000,000 I)eh Rahoki al lancl 'Ialuka/ Distlict H .1s14[ad '17.09.1.4 Rs.100,000,000 5 I']lot No.116 measuring Resiclential 2000 Sq. Yds in Plot Khayat-rarr-e-Qasinr Phase-VIII, DHA Karachi.

6.2 x Plot No.118/ I ancl Resitlential 17.09."r4 Rs.1l 0,000,000 118/ ll each measuring Plot 1000 Sq. Yds in I(hayaban-e-Qasim Pl-rase-VIII, DHA Karachi.

3 That petitioner sharjeel Inam Memon illegally transferred ill gotten monet amounting to approx I{S1.2 Billion by hawala and hundi through -< petitioller No.6 Muhammed Sotlail who was working for DD money- exchange to himself in Dubai which was collectecl by him or on his behalf from Sajwani exchange based in Dubai.

4 That the proper ties listecl below were held in the name of petitioners 4,6,9,10,1,1 ancl 12 being respectively Zeeshan, Subhan, Ahmed Ahsan, Shoukat AIi Thebo, Waseem Akhtar Thebo and Kamran Gul (absconder) as berratnit'lars orr behalf trf Sharieel Ittam Metnon;

o d 6

S# Property Year of ln I'urchase amount purchase s 1 Rehance cotton 11 ,04.18 Waseem and 73,591,400 factory & Orl Mrll Shoukat ) Thebo 2 Constr uction cost of 2015 & I(amran Gul 346,974,582 Rawal Farm House onwarcls 3 AgriculLural lancl 15.05.15 Zeeshan 376,O0,000 measurmg 54-11 Acres sr tuatccl rrr Deh Dah wadr and 40-24 acr es srtua tect rn l)plr Rahookr Taluka/ Drstnct H rabacl 4 Agncultural lantl 15 08.15 Zeeshan 18,330,000 measunng 30-22 Acres srtuatecl m Deh I)ah watfi Taluka/ Drstrrct H clera ba c1 5 Burrglow No.26/ II, 02.05.1.7 Nazrana 65,000,000 7tl. Commercral lzhat Vl / o.

Street Phase-lV, Izhar Hussaur .a DHA, Karachr 6 Plot No.P/25, Area 13 1t 13 Subhan Khan 12,000,000 L5 Acres srtuaterl at

I

Srlq Ary9 Kot11 Plot No lI /47, Atea 227r 1.3 Subharr Khan 20,000,000/ - 05 At r es srtuatetl at Srte Area Nor rabad & Irlot No.H/48, Area 04.-1213 Agha Ahsan 20,000,000 0.5 Acres srtuateel at a Norrabad 9 B/243, Area 72-11-13 Subhan Khan 7,000,000 srfuated at lslte n rea Nonabad Izhar I lussam 755,000

| ['lot No.N A. Area, 1 31.03.14 Acres srtuated at I Srte Area lHycleral-,ad ll [)lot No P/ 33, Area 22.71. 13 Izhar Hussatn 37s,000 l0 25 At'ros sl tua tr.cl | ,r Srte Alea lu ycl ra ba tl e

5 That between the years 2010 ar-rd 2016 petitioner Sharjeel Inam Memon aucl hts far-nily (rnclutlltlg hrs wife l-]etltroner No 2 Mst Saclaf and his Drother petltioner Ncr.3 Mst Zeenat) spent approx RS 1 crore oll alr trckets.

4 Learnecl counsel for petrtioner Sharleel Inam Memon contendecl that rt was a coflrplete case of lnalafide agalnst the petrtioner and hls family whrch also ulcludeLl hrs wrfe petttloner Ntr.2 Mst Saclaf Shar';eel, petitlonel No 3 hrs lnoiher Zeenat Inam Memorl ancl petitroner 4 Zeeshan $rho rvas hrs brother in law as the

g1

NAII were determined to arrest him at all costs on account of political victimization anel engineering as he was a sitting MPA whose political Party was in opposition to the Government at the Federal level. In this respect he referred to an orcler passed by tl.ris court dated 24.06.2019 and the fact that in that order ) NAll hacl cleliberately given tl-re incorrect date of irrvestigation in order to arrest him before in this reference whilst he was in jail and his bail petition was being heard in that case and NAB's intention was to keep him behind bars for years on end arrcl thereby exert political pressure on him at tl-re behest of the Federal Covernrnent. I-le also subrnitter,l that it was a dishonest investigation as well as despite NAB kr.rowing full well that he had disposed of two plots in order to purchase agricultural property the NAB had also contended in the reference that he still ownec.l these plots; that NAB in calculating his total income hacl cleliberately suppressecl some of his agricultural income ancl had not even consirlereei other agricultural land which belongecl to him, that NAB had corrtencled that his wife ancl lris mother were housewives with no source of inconre anel as such hacl jurnpecl to the incorrect assumption that since they had no source of funds any propertv whictr they held in their own names they were cftring as benamidars on his behalf wl-rich had been acquirecl tl,rough his cor.ruption whereas the NAB had not even investigated either his wife's or his rnothers source of funds and if they had done so NAB would have found that his wife had her own resources to purchase the properties in question through a busirress in Dubai which sl-re had been running frotn 2007 before her husband holtl public office; tl-rat lris rnotlrer had inheritecl large amounts of ProPelty from hcr tleceasecl husband; that NAB in terming his wife ancl mother as housewife's lracl totally failecl to appr.eciate that they hacl been paying tax since 2014 and as such they were inclependent persons and not his dependants; that NAB had not car.riecl out a proper investigation into either his, his wife's, his mother oI blother in law's (Zeeshan) sources of income prior to and after the purchase of the pt'operties in their respective names ancl had mainly relied on his tax returns and assets declarations where the NAB had rnassively inflated the value of the properties to reach the conclusion that he had assets beyond his known sources of irrcome whiclr was insufficient investigation as the NAB had to positively investigate indepenclently from his tax return and assets c-leclaration and irrvt-.stigate l-ris, his wife, his mother and his brother in laws sources of income; with regarcl to properties listetl in the UK these belonged to another Person krrown as Muhammed Sharjeet Inam Memon and not him and yet the NAB had failecl to investigate this positior.r; that NAB had no originals of the documents of

the properties which were allegedlv owned by him; that the petitioner was not a paupel anrl had a large alnount of assets from the outset due to the various busrnesses he was involvecl in, rn parttcular travel agencies and real estate and the NAB hacl not lookecl into this rnatter. that the Petttioner's assets had been ) wlongly valued by the NAB at ridiculously high rates and if they had been valued rn accortlance wrth Rule 3 of West Pakistan Lancl Assessment Revenue Itules 1968 (which tl.rey were rrot) the assets he had would have fallen wrthin hrs r1leans, that he clicl not sentl 'rny lnolle)' to Dubar anci there was r-ro evidence that he cLcl so arrcl even otherwrse he l-rari earnt sufficient mone)' Iegally to senc'l ltloney abroac'l which was not a crime, that the so callecl farm lrouse was only rentetl by hinr ancl was or,'r'ner'l b1' abscontling accusecl No.12 Kamran Gul and tftus for a]l tl-re al.rove r.easons petihoner.s Sl'rar'1eel Inam Metnon, hrs wife L)etrtioner Mst Saclaf Shar.jeel ancl his mothe.r' pe'trtitlner Zeenat [nam Memon

shoulcl be grantecl pre arrest barl Irr support of hts contentlons he placed reliance on Muhammad Hashim Babar v. The state and another (2010 scMR 1697), Ghani-ur-Rehman v. National Accountability Bureau and others (PLD 2011 -t Supreme Court 1144), I(halid Lzizv. The State (2011 SCMR 136), Syed Qasim Shah v. The State (2009 SCIV{R 790), HakimaliZardari v' The State (SBLR 2007 Srrrr-]h 755), Farrul<h Javed Ghumman v. The State (PLD 2004 Lahore 155), an orcler passed by Sindh High Court Agha Mussihuddin Khan Durrani v' Chairnran NAB in (C.P No.D-1437 of 2019) and an order passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in C.P. No.3427 of 2018 (AlL Sallacl Bhutta v Chainlan NAB)

5.Learned courrsel for Zeeshan contenLled that that he hacl been malafidely ropecl lnto the reference [ecause he',vas the brotl-rer in law of the Sha4eel Inam Menron; tlrat the original cornplarnt to NAB was by an election rir,'al who wantecl to falsely rmplicate him rn thrs case; that the call up notlce whicll was sent a yeal after NAB recerved the cornprlarnt wcts contradlctory to the cotnplarnt recervetl by NAB which showecl that NAII was malafrde cnglleerrng a case against hrm; that the Io hacl comprletely failecl to [l\,estlgate the case a8ainst hrm as if he had c]one so l-re would have fourrd that he was a person of considerable means and was not a pauper Fot example, he l-rar..l rnheritet'l 10 properties which the NAB had 4 conrpletely rgnorerl, that he hatl a cattle business srnce 2015 from which he made substar-rtial earnings arrcl even had cotrcerus iu a sugar mrll thus he personally hacl more than enough income to account for the properties In his name and was not a benamrdar of petrtioner sharjeel Inam Memon, that NAB only had photo copres of his clocuments anrl not the onginals ancl thus for all the above reasot-ts

r-)

petitioner Zeeshan should be granted Pre arrest bail. In support of his contentions he has placed reliance or1 Waris Mean v. (1) The State (2) The State Bank of Paksitan (PLD 1957 SC 157), Pakistan Telecommunication Co' Ltd' Through Chairman v. Iqbal Nisar and others (PLD 2011 SC 144), Khalid Azizv.

) The State (2011 SCMI{ 136), Chairman, National Accountability Bureau, Islamabad through Prosecutor-General Accountability, Islamabad (PLD 2019 SC 445), Khan Asfandyar Wali and others v. Federation of Pakistan through Cabinet Division Islamabad and others (PLD 2001 SC 607) and Ghulam Hussain Baloch & others v. The Chairman NAB & another (SBLR 2007 Sindh

6.Learnecl Counsel for petitioners Agha Ahsan, Subhan, Shoukat Ali Thebo anrl Waseem Akthar Thebo contended that they hacl been malaficlely implicated in this carse simply because sotne clocuments relating to them wete recoveretl frorn the office of petitioner Izhar Hussain who is the personal assistant of petitioner Sharf eel Inam Memon. He has contencled that none of the above petitioners are benamiciars of petitioner Sharjeel Inam Memon. He has taken us through various clocuments which show that the NAU has massively over valued the properties which they own and has in particular Pointed to documents which reveal the true value of tlre properties and has also pointeti us to documents which show that each petitioner has sufficient funcls to buy the proPelties in question out of their own income and that NAB only had photo copies of his clocurnents, he also explainetl why some of the copies of their tlocutnents were with sl-rarjeel Inarn Memorr's PA apei thus for all the above reasons petitioners Agha Ahsan, Subhan, Shaukat Ali Thebo and Waseem Akthar Tebo should be grantec{ pre arrest bail. In support of his contentions he placed reliance on an orcler dated 03.-12.2019 passecl by the Supreme Court of Pakistan in C.I']. No.3427 of 2018 (Ali Sajjad Bhutta v. Chairman NAB), an order passed by the Honorable Supreme Court irr C.P. No.1357 of 201.9, C.P. No.1385 of 201'9 and C'P. No.1386 of 2019, an order dated 22.04.2020 passecl by this Sindh High Court in C.P. No.D-44 of 2020 and other connectecl petitions (Syed Khursheed Ahmed Shah v' Chairman NAB and another) ancl an ort'ler clated 18.72.2079 Passed by the 4 lslamabacl High Court in W.P. No.769 of 2019 (Amjad Mustafa Malik v- DG NAB and others)

7.Learnecl counsel for petitioner Muhammecl Sohail who has applied for post arrest bail has contendecl that the only allegation against him is that through DD Money exchange he transferred aPProx RS one Billion to Dubai via the

I

I

hawala /huncli system whicl.r furrrls allegedly belonged to petitioner Sharjeel Inam Memon; that he has absolutely no association with DD Exchange in any capacity; that any USB which was recovered contains ledgers which are unsigned and only have the name of "Failec'l Shahicl Bhai" which has nothing to do with , either him or petitioner Sharjeel Inam Memon ancl in any event this case does not fall within the jurisdiction of NAB but might be a case falling un<ler the Anti Money Laundering legislation and since he cannot be connectec'l with the offense he should be granted post arrest bail.

8.Learned counsel for petitioner' lzhar Hussain who has applied for post arrest bail has contenclecl tl'rat he was not a Government employee but rather he rt as the personal assistant privately employecl by petitioner Sharjeel Inam Memon whose job was to keep Sharjeel lnam Memon's dairy, book tickets, prepare tax refurns etc and this is why copies of some documents concerning petitioner Sharjeel Inarn Memon and his farnily were with him. It has been allegecl that he was a benamirlar of Sharjeel lnam Memon in respect of a bungalow in rlefense ancl a property in SITE. He took us through various clocuments whicl-r showed not only that he had sufficient sources of income to buy the properties which were in lris own name but that t]re price attributed to sucl-r properties had beel massively inflatecl by the NAB ancl as such since he canllot be corurected with the offense he should be granted post arrest bail.

9, On the other hancl learned special prosecutor NAB has contended that NA13 through the rlocumerrts on record have establishetl that petitioner Sharieel Inarn Merron hacl acquirecl assets disproportionate to his known sources of incorne which he could not reasonably account for and that the other petitioners either aiderl and abetted hirn in this resPect ancl/ or were his benamidars. In support of his corrtentiorrs he placerl reliance on Gulsher Ahmed chachar and others v, National Accountability Bureau through chairman and others (2019 YLR 1016), Rana Abdul Khaliq v. The State and others (2019 SCMR 1129), Rana Muhamrnad Arshad v, Muhammad Rafique and another (PLD 2009 Supreme Court 427\, Ali Dino Gahoti aud others v, Director General NAB and others (2077 P. Cr.LJ Note 138), Muhammad Arif Teevno v. National Accountability Bureau through Chairman and others (20"17 YLR Note 144) and Rai Muhammad I(han v. NAB through Chairman and others (2017 SCMR 1152).

10.We have hear<l the arguments for the parties, considered the record along with the relevant law including that cited at the bar.

l0

ql

11.At the outset we would like to make it clear that this order is based on only a tentative assessment of the evidence on record and shall have no bearing on the trial which shall be decided by the trial court based on merit whilst consiclering the evir-lence before it.

I

72, Turning to the cases of the petitioners on pre arrest bail namely Sharjeel Inatn Merton, Mst Sadaf Sharjeel, Ms Zeenat lnam Memon, Zeeshan, Subhan, Agha Ahsan, Shaukat Ali Thebo and Wassem Aktal Thebo.

13.tt is well settled by now that pre arrest bail is an extra ordinary relief which can only be granted if there is matafide on the part of the investigating agency. In this respect reliance is placecl on Rana Mohammed Arshad V Mrrhamrned Rafique (PLD 2009 SC 427). In our view the petitioners on Pre arrest bail l1ave been able to r-r-rake out a case of malafide against them on the part of the NAII.

'14. This is because it seems that tl.re NAB is hell bent on keePins petitioner Sharjeel Inam Merron behind bars. Petitioner Sharjeel Inam Memon has already spent almost two years behincl bars in another reference before being released on post al.lest bail. Before however he was released on bail during his bail hearing thr: NAB attempted to arrest him in this case whilst he was in iail which conduct was deprecated by this court in its order dated 24.06.2019 since it appeared to lre an attempt to ensure that petitioner Sharjeel Inam Memon remained in jail which tencls to rlemonstrate NAB's rnalafides. lt is also observed in that order that NAB was claiming that an investigation had already been authorized and that a reference was on the verge of being filed yet in the instant refelence it shows that no investigation hac-l beerr autholizecl at that time and showed the desperation of the NAB to keep the accusecl in jail even if he got bail in the other case which would leacl to his continued incarceration. Interestingly this reference was filed much after petitioner Sharjeel Inam Memon's release on bail in the other case which prirna facie inclicates that his arrest in this case at that stage was not iustifiec.l. It is trite law that the denial of bail is not to be used as a punishment. It is aiso not without significance tlrat petitioner Sharjeel Inam Memon is an 4 opposition politician to the current majority party in the Federal Government ancl when confronted by this court whether any Federal or Provincial Politician associatecl with the majority Party l-Iow governing the country was facing any reference before the accountability courts in Pakistan the Special Prosecutor NAB anc'l IO could not provide any satisfactory answer despite their being serious 1l

1L

allegations of corruption against some such politicians. However, apparently the NAB lrave also prepared yet anotl-rer case against petitioner Sharjeel Inam Memon in Islamabad. We are also cognizant of the fact that such a situation has potentially recently been noticed by the Supreme Court in another NAB bail case i of I(hawaja Salman Rafique and Another V NAB dated 17.03.2020 in Civil Petitions No.2243L and 2986L where it was held as under at para 67; "The bureau seems reluctant in proceeding on one side oi the political divide even in respect of financial scams of a massive proportion while those on the other side are being arrested and incarcerated for months and years without providing any sufficient cause."

15.Even otherwise malafide is very hard to prove and as such it can also be inJerred frorn the facts and circumstances of the case and as such in this case we also make such an infer.ence of malafide by the NAB against the petitioners who are on pre arrest bail who are in one way oI another associated with petitioner Sharjeel Inam Memon mainly being his famiiy members.

The law on cases of assets beyond known sources of Income which the accused cannot reasonably account for.

i

76.The allegation against petitioner sharjeel Inam Memon is that he acquire<l assets beyond his known sources of income which he cannot account for under s.9 (a) (v) oI the NAO and in essence the other co-accused were either his aiders ancl abettors or benamidars.

1,7. In the case of Hakim Ati Zardari v. The State (2007 MLD 910), this court laicl rlown the criteria required to be satisfied in cases under section 9(a)(v);

"ln order to protte tlrc case, tlu prosecution is required to proue the ingredients of ttrc offence, ruhich are (1) it ntttst establish that tlu nccuseri tpns holder of n public office (2) tlu nnture and extent of tlrc peutniary resources of property ruhich ruere found in lis posscssion, (3) it must be proaed as to what were his known sources of income i.e. lenoun to the ptosecution, after thorough inoestigation and (4) tt ntust prozte, quite objectirtely, tlnt such resources or property found in possession of tlrc accused ruere disproportionate to lis knoun sources of income. Once tlrcse four ingredients nre estnbhslrcd tlrc o.ffence ns defned under sechon 9(a)(tt) is contplete, unless the accused is able to account for sr.tch resources or property. Thus, ,flere possession of afly 1 pecuniary resources or property is lty itself not ort offence, but it is failure to satisfactorily account fol such possession of pecuniary resources or property that makes the possession objectionable and constitute offence. lf lrc cnnnot explnin, preamtption under seclion ru@ of tlrc Ordinancc tlmt nccused is guilty of corruptiott nnd corntpt practices is reEtired to he drmtn. Reference is inuited to n cnse Bixoa Blutshnn Naik u'

State (AlR 1954 SC 350) in toliclt identicnl prottision ltl Prettention of Corruption Act, 1947 ruere interpreted."

18.The Supreme Court in the case of Muhammad Hashim Babar v' The State and another (2010 scMR 1697 SCMR 1.697) approvec{ Hakim Ali Zardari's case I (Supra) as to what ingredients were required to be proved in an assets beyond know sources of income case uuder the NAO as under;- "lt is pertinent to mentiotr ltre tlnt in order to prooe tle cnse is tlrc duty nnrl obligation of tlrc prosacution to proue tlu ingredients of the offence l,litlt nrc ns lollou,s:

(i)lt nrust estnblish tlut the nccused uas holder of a public ofice' (i) Tlu nature nnd extent of the pecuniary resources of property rultich ruere found in his possession.

(ii)It must be proaed as to uthat, uere his krrowtt sources of inconte i.e knozan to the prosecution after a thorough inztestigatiott.

(n)lt ntust prore, quite ohictti'ely, tlnt such resources or Proyerty to lris found iti posses'sion of tlrc nccused uere disproportionnte knorun sources of irrcorne.

'the ns defined -t foresnid ingretlients nre protetl then tlrc offence Ltnder section g(dk) is complete, unless the accused is able to account fot such resources or Property' lt is also settled propositlon of lazu that mere possession of any pecuniary resoutces or property is by itself not an offence, ,but failure to satisfactorily account for such possession of pecuniary resources or property that makes the possession- obiectionable and c'ons[itutes offence nrcaning thereby thnt .if nn accuserl cnnnot explnin, presunrption under section 14(c) of tlrc Ordinrtnce tlutt trt.l,,sed is guilty o.f corruption nnd corrupt prncticcs is reqrrirad to ba dtnton "

^tg. Such ingredients and principles in the above cases were again affirmecl and approved by the supreme Court in the later cases of Khalid Aziz v. The State (2011 SCMI{ 136) and Ghani-ur-Rehman v' National Accountability Bureau and others (PLD 2011 SC 1144) and more recently by followed by this court in the case of Agha Massihuddin Khan Durrani V State (PLD 2020 Sindh 365).

20.The only recent change to the ingletlients is that the NAO applies -1 to private ir-rdivicluals as well as public office holders following the case of Abdul Aziz Memon v state (PLD 2013 SC 594) with regard to the first ingreclient of the offence.

21.. It is also important to note that any omission of an asset in a tax form or assets declaration form will not automatically make a Person, l3

liable in an assets beyond known sources of income cases as was lrelcl in tlre case of Khalid Aziz (Supra) in the following terms at P .-143 Para 11 as set out below in matelial part;

"Tlre question ns to rplrctlrcr these nntounts toere not ntentioned in I tlrc lnconrc Tnx Departnrent or thnt tlrc resolution ruas not fled toith tlrc Registrar, Cooperatitte Societies is by itself ruill not affect the explnnition or drmp nny ndtterse inference against tlxe appellant us tle nppropriate actiotl cnn be taken under the lncome inx Lntos or by tha Registrnr, Cooperotiue Societies Act (sic) tgninst tha Fini tmdcr tlrc relu'nnt prot'isions of lnto, if such lnu's ora piolnted."

22.We now need to examine whether the legal ingredients for an asset beyond known sources of income case have been satisfied with respect to petitioner Sharjeel Inatn Metnon and the other petitioners' 1 That Sharjeel Inam Memon is a holder of public office has been satisfiecl

2.The nature ancl extent of the pecuniary resources of property -{ which were found in his possession has been satisfied'

3.It rrust be provecl as to what, were his known sources of income through thorough investigation and

4.It rnust be proved, quite objectively,, tl.rat such resources or property founcl in possession of the accused were clisproportionate to his known sources of income'

23.In our view 3 and 4 above have not been satisfied in respect of the properties listed in the first two tables cite<l above where properties are said to helc-l in the names petitioner Sl-rarjeel Inam Memon, his wife and mother for the following r easons;

(a)As per the ingredients NAB hacl to carry out a thorough investigation and it appears that NAB has failed to do so. This is because NAB failecl to check whether either Sharjel L.rarn Memon's wife (petitioner Mst Sadaf Sharjeel) or mother (petitioner Mst Zeenat Inam Memon) hatl any indepenclent source of income which -f could enable them to purchase the properties in their ovvn narne. We have been shown documents that show that petitiorrer Mst Sadaf Sharjeel hacl profitable businesses in Dubai before her husband (petitioner Sharjeel Inam Memon) held public office which would have enabled her to purchase the properties in NAB's table in their reference in her own llame and l"tas provic'lecl a statement which has been taken ou recorcl l4

It which shows her complete money trial. Like wise we have been shown documents that show that petitioner Mst Zeenat Inam Memon had inherited sufficient property/assets which have been filed along with her offiaorit ancl have been takelr on record after tl-re cieath of her husband which would have enabled her to l purchase the properties in NAB's table in their reference in her own name and as such these Petitioners (Mst Sactaf Sharjeel ancl Mst Zeenat Inam Memon) cannot be cleemecl to be the benamidar holders of these properties on behalf of petitionel Sharieel Inam Memon When confrontec.l by this court the IO candidly conceded that he hacl not investigatecl ar-ry independent source o( funcls that either Mit Saclaf Sharjeel (wife of Sharjeel Inam Mernon) atrd petitioner Mst Zeenat Inam Memon (mother of Sl-rarieel Inam Memon) rnay have hacl to enable them to purchase properties in their own names as accolcling to him thev were both non earning housewife's. It aPPears that the IO sirnply assumed that because the petitioners were the' wife and the mother of petitroner Sliarjeel Ilram Memon what ever assets they haci in their own nalnes were being held as benamidar on behalf of Sharjeel Inam Memon without thoroughly investigating the position as he was required to do in ,"rp".t*of sull-r offlnses. In particular, with regard to the sectncl table reproducecl in this order apparently propelties listec'l at No.5 ancl 6 were solcl in oreler tcr prr.l-rur" ploperties No 1 to 4 and as such the purchase Lf prop"rii""'at No.1 to 4 have been accounted for and like wise the properties at serial No.5 and 6' (b) Furthermore, boih petitioner Mst Sadaf Sharieel (wife of Sharjeel Inam Memon) ancl petitioner Mst Zeenat Inam Memot't (mother of Sharjeel luam Meuron) have been filing independent tax returns since 2014 in their own namis where these properties are revealed in their own names and as such they are not dependants of petitioner Sharjeel Inam Memon ancl for tax PurPoses are separate antl irrclependent Persons. (.) In adclition the lO when confrontecl by this court conceclecl that he hacl hardly any of the original documents irr respect of the properties listed in the tables.

(d)Thus all the properties/ assets listed in the tables in the references in the names of petitioner Mst Sadaf and petitioner Mst Zeer-rat Inam Memon cannot prima facie t" p.or".l to belong to Sharieel Inam Memon and pu..hrse.l from funcls provided by him for which NAB has not proclucecl any evidence. At a minimum it is a case of further incluiry in respect of these properties' (e) With regarci to p"titio,l"t Sharjeel Inam Memon through a stateinent filed in court he has also produced clocutnents so show that ratller than being a PauPer before he enterecl public life he was a successful business mau who owned numerous Travel Agencies and Real llstate companies which were extremely l5

q(

profitable. Again before entering public office he has annexed statements of various bank officials to the effect that huge transactions on account of his various business enterprises usecl to go through h:is various bank accounts.

(f)In petitioner Sharieel Inam Memon's statement filed t before this court documents have also been annexed which show that sorne of the properties in Dubai in petitioner Sharjeel Inart Memou's t-tatne do not belong io him and belong to another Person named Muhammed Shatjeel Memon which aspect of the case needs fu rther inquirv.

(g)The NAB has irrcludecl two ProPerties in the table which are subject to nlol'tgage ancl as such cannot be assets but rather liabilities; we l'rave also seen documents which show that some of the petitioners agricultural income has been suPPressed and that income from some lands has not been accountecl for at all

(h)With regard to the farm house this is not in the name of petitioner Sharieel Iuam Memon and by his own idmission he rents the same. The IO has concetletl that he c'loes not have the original documents for this proPerty. The farmhouse is in the name of petitioner No.12 Kamran Gul who lras absconded and as such at { the bail stage we cannot go into a deeper assessment of evic-leuce wiich 'w'ill neecl to be done at the time of trial as to who is the actual owner of the farmhouse which question is one of further inquiry.

(l)flhe real issue it would seem in connection with properties which are helcl in the name o[ petitioner Straiie"t Inam Memon a nc'l are listed in the tables in the refereuce ancl which he admittedly disclosed ir-r his tax returns is the correct value of these properties (as conceded by NAB) as both petitioner Sharjeel Inam Memon anr-l NAB have given clifferent valuations and accortling to petitioner Sharjeel Inam Memon such value as shown in liis table has been massively inflated by the NAB. Attachecl below is a table attached with petitioner Sharjeel Inam Memon's valuation of his properties and NAd's valuation. The correct value of these properties is to be cleterrrinecl at trial only after recording evidence which in our view also makes this a case of further inquiry in respect of petitioner Sharieel Inam Memon vis u uit [h" properties in his name and whether he could have afforclecl thett-t out of his legally acquirec-l income' Property D eclared Bv Assessed bY Difference s # Pctitioner NAI}

t 2 x Flat No.T2-307 (1485 sq ft) 50,000,000 & T2-508 (1365 sq ft), GR Penorma Dubai 2 Jewelry 300,000 300,000

3 Furniture & Fittings 3,000.000 3,000,000 4 Rental Agricultural lanti - 3,200,000 3,200,000 Deposit TancloAllah ar

I

t6

r'l 5 Personal Weapons 2,500,000 2,s00,000

6 Bur-rgalow No.3-B/1, 29th Street Khayaban-e- 25,677,348

Shamsheer Phase-V, DHA Verified Karachi (mortgage amount icl

I I3ungalow No.42/ 2, 28th

Street, Khayabarr-e-M u jahici 39,427,617 in Phase V DHA Karachi Verified (mortgage amount paid 8 Agricultural lancl measuring 59-01 Acres situated in 44,800,000 r.12,00,000 56,000,000 Ilahooki, Tappa A-Tanclo Qaiser, T'aluka District Verified Hyclerabad 9 Agricultural Iand measuring 4-12 acres situated in Deh 2,000,000

Barchani, Taluka & District Verified Hydelabad 10 Lancl measuling 21 Acres, 20 15,080,000 920,000(land) Ghunta & Construction cost + of House in Nagarparkar 27,290,000 (Construction 13,130,000 cost) Rs.28,210,000 1l 'foyota Lanrl Cruiser Moclel 10,000,000 10,000,000 { 2008 BG-3333 Not verified 72 Toyota Jeep Model 2004 BD- 3,150,000 3,150,000 9181 Not verified 13 'l'ovota Lexus Model 2013 26,420,000 29,242,000 2,822,000 BZ-8888 Verified 14 Vehicle Purchased by Zeenat 5,000,000 5,000,000 in tlre rrame of son Not vetified

SUM ADDED BY N AB 732,296,965

24.ln respect of the money allegedly transferrerl abroacl by petitioner Shalieel lnam Memon through DD Exchange a ledger has been Produced by NAB which was printed off a USB recovered from petitioner No.6 Muhammed Sohail which shows monetary transactions between Pakistan and Dubai. Flowever, the ledger account is in the name of Failed Shahid Bhai which prima facie indicates that the accounts belong to him. NAB made no efforts to track clowrr this person. Some copies of non verified transaction forms have been printeci off with the name Sharjeel Inam Memon but these do not come any where near the RS1.2 billion which he allegedly trausferred to Dubai' These -{ forms are all unsigned and there is no evi{ence that either Petitioner Sharieel Inam Memon or anyone else on his behalf collected such money if it was tr.ansfer.red. Furtherrnore, the NAB have not been able to link these funds sent to Dubai to sharjeel Inam Memon or alry one acting on his behalf. we can also not lose sight of tl-re fact that petitioner sharjeel Inam Memon's family already had t l1

1B

profitable businesses in Dubai prior to these transactions and NAB has not been able to show that any of such funds were linked to any asset which his family purchased in Dubai. Once again the admissibility and veracity of such clocuments can only be determined at trial after recording evidence and as such t agaiu the alleged rnoney transfers come within the ambit of further inquiry. Likewise with regard to petitioner No.6 Muhammed Sohail there is very little eviclence to link him to DD Exchange and Sharieel Inam Memon. He is not nalned in the unsigned, unverified ledger and no employment contract has been prroducetl so show that he worked for DD Exchange or ever transferred any rnonies and as such his case is one of further inquiry as to his role in this alleged transfer of money

25.With regard to petitioners Zeeshan, Subhan, Ahmed Ahsan, Shoukat Ali Thebo, Waseem Akhtar Thebo and Izhar Hussain who are listed in the third table set out in this order as benamidars on behalf of Sharjeel Inam Mernon we are satis{ied through the various documents which have been shown to us that all petitioners plima facie had sufficient soulces of funds to purchase the properties { ir-r their names and at the price which they paid which NAB was unable to rebut ancl that again the main clispute is one of the actual cost/vaiue of the properties at the time o[ purchase. It appears prima facie frorn NAB's own record that it has been valuing these properties at market value rather than their value at the time of purchase by an unqualified person clespite some of the properties being in SITE whicl-r prices are fixecl by the Goverrunent and thus the question of the actual value of the properties and whether the aforesaid petitioners coulcl actually afforr{ to buy them is a matter of further inquiry which can only be ,letermined at hial after leading eviL-lel1ce.

26.For exarnple, a letter dated 17.05.2019 from SITE to NAB which NAB is relying upon to show that the properties Purchased by some of the above petitioners prima facie tencis to show that the purchase price claimed to be paid by the petitioners at the time of purchase as opposed to NAB's market value evaluation is the correct purchase price. A coPy of the said letter is produced as undeu f Sindh Indushial Trading Estates (Guarantee) Limited Manghopir Road, Karachi'75700 No.4454 Dated 1'7-05-2079

Mr. Kashif Noor, Deputy Director/Co-C(IW-L), National Accountability Bureau, Karachi

t8

PITCS Building,797 /5, Dr. Daudpota Road, Karachi Cantonment, Karacl-ri.

SUBJECT CALL UP NOTICE TO THE WITNESS U/S 19 READ WITH 28

NAO, 1999 - INQUIRY AGAINST SHARIEEL INAM MEMON,

I N4I'A SINDH ASSEMBLY 7 OTI.IERS

I{c.ference You r I etter N. N A BK201 80 41,231.08 / lW -1'l MUM-C/ SIM / 2019 / 3349 Dated 02/ 05 /2019.

With reference to your letter cited above, following are the details recluirecl by you with respect to the subject inquiry.

NAME PLOT A REA EST AT I: DATE OF PHYS ICA L PAYM EN- PURPOSE I NTAC-T/

NO. ALI-OTME. POSSESSI TS CANCEL.

NT ON LED

-tyr1/2073 Oper plot 6,262,200 Petrol Iitact Strbhan Khan s/o P/25 1.50 Kotn Sa 1\,al PunrF Subhai Kl1an s,/o H/27 0.50 Noln'iIbn(l 22111/2073 Oper plot 1,254,477 Petlol lnt rcl Sar!,a t Pulnp Agha Ahsan s/o H/48 0.50 Nqrriaba!l 04/72n013 Open plot 7,2E9,739 Cornnler' Intact Murntaz Ali cial Shaiklr .t.00 Industrial Intact Subhan Khan s/o B/ 243 Nrrrrrabatl | 2T11P013 Open plol 307,700 5a \^'a t lzh.rr Hussairr s/o NA 1.00 Hl'dera 3U03/2014 755,000 lnclustrial lntact Cholanr Hussain t atl lzhar Hussain s/o P /33 0.25 Hy,.lera 2T7V2013 3 ,000 Inclustrial lntact Chulanr Hussarn harl

It is to place on your record that SITE Limited does not maintain the photocopies of the Pay orcle'rs / Cheques deposited by the tenants. 'l'his is for your kincl perusal and further necessary actions' sd/ - Secretary

27 . With respect to the allegation of petitioner Sharjeel Inam Memon spending approx RS one crore along with his wife, mother and family over a 6 year period we do not find this atnount to be that excessive or of huge consequence keeping in view tl-re overall amounts in the reference and it has not been shown that the three petitioners coulc'l not have afforc{ed such cost of air travel out of their own legal sources of income which also included other family rnembers travel costs.

28.With regarcl to petitioners lzhar l-lussain and Muhammed Sohail who have both applied for post arrest bail (and thus tlo not have to show malafides -{ against the NAB) we have also taken into account the fact that these two petitioners have been in jail for one year 4 months and one year 3 months respectively and yet the charge has still not been framed and no delay in this respect has been caused by either of thern. There are 64 PW's to be examined, l"lumerous documents to be exhibited ancl 12 accused who will each have a separate rigirt of cross exarnination in respect of each and every witness and as l9

loo

such the trial is not likely to be concluded in the near future which factor also tilts the grant of post arrest bail in their favour not with standing that there case is one of further inquiry.

29.The fact that none of the petitioners are needed for further investigation in

I

the reference ancl the reference is mainly of a clocumentary nature which makes it clifficult for the petitioners to tamper with the same as such documents are with the NAB also tilts the balance of bail being granted in respect of all the petitioners not with standing the fact that we have found the case of all the petitioners as being one of further inquiry and hence have granted them all bail also keeping in view the settled law that bail cannot be withheld as a punishment.

30.Before parting with this or.der we would like to observe that in cases concerning assets beyonci known sources of income that it is incumbent upon the IO t0 carry out a thorough ancl professional inquiry/ investigation and ensure that all the legal ingredients of the offense as laid down by the Supreme Court -{ are met. Perceptions and suspicions can never rePlace cogent, reliable and actnissible evidence. The Io needs to take an active and dynamic role in the investigation. In this case however we regret to say that it appears that the [O seems to have carrietl out most of his investigation whilst sitting in his office and maillly relying on income tax returns and assets declarations of the petitioners' out of all the numerous properties tistetl in tl-re reference including agricultural lancl he only personally visiterl one ProPerty. I{e does not appear to have investigated the source of fur-rc1s of the so called benamidars. The most striking exarnple was wheu petitioner Zeesham showed that he had received income through the sale of cattle frorn his farm yet the IO had not even Sone to see if this cattle farm even existecl or collected evidence of any such sales to check his sour.ce of funds ancl did not even know that he had inherited 10 properties. It seems, Prima facie, that Zeeshan was simply lumped in the reference with the other petitioners because he was relatecl to petitioner Shalieel Inatlr Memon and owned property and therefore was assumed to be a benamidar. Many original clocuments also appear to have been either not seized as per memo of recovery or "f rrisplacecl.

31.These are the reasons for our short order dated 19.08.2020 which reads as under;

tol

"Mr. Ahmed Masud, Advocate for the petition er lzhar Hussain in C'P'No D-1697 of ZO2o,who has applied for post arrest bail, has completed his submissions' Special Prosecutor, NAB assistecl by Investigating Officer Mr' Umair has made his submissiolrs in respect of all the petitioners on both post arrest bail and pre- an'est bail.

For the reasons to be recordecl later on, we hereby confirm the interim pre-arrest + bail granted to sharjeel Inam Memon vide order dated 2L.06.2019 subject to his fuln[hing an aclditional surery in the sum of Rs.40,00,000/- (Rupees Forty Lacs) ar-rcl P.R Bond in the like amount to the satisfachon of the Nazir' With legalcl to Petitioners Saclaf Sharjeel ancl Zeenat Inam Memon initially they hacl sought their nou-arrest in this case. However, we hereby convert their petitionslto Pre-arrest bail and grant them Pre-arrest bail subiect to furnishing solvent surety in tl-re sum of Rs.10;00,000/- (Rupees Ten Lacs) each ancl PR Boncl in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Nazir of this Court' we her.eby conftrm pre-arrest bail granted to Zeeshan subject to his furnishing aciditionai sulety in il'r" .rn-, of Its i7,00,000/- (Rupees Seventeen Lac) and P'R' Bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Nazir of this Court' Pre-arrest bail grantecl to the petitioners Subhan, Agha Ahsan, Waseem Akhtar Thebo ancl Shaukat Ali Thebo is hereby confirmed on the same terms and conciitions.

With regartl to the petilioners lzhar IJussain ancl Mohammad Sohail both petitioners are granted Post arrest bail subiect to furnishing solvent-surety in the sum of Rs.20,0O,OOO7- 1if"p""s Twenty Lac) anc{ P.R. Bond i. the like amount to the satisfaction of the Nazir of this Court.

t Names of all the aforesaicl petitioners shall be placed on ECL' Copy of this short sl-rall be sent thlough facsimile to the Secretary, Ministry of Interior' Government of Pakistan for compliance.

LATE DIARY.

It has erroneously not been mentionecl in orcler sheet dated 19 '08'2020 that NAB who slrall not immecliately arrest either Sadaf Sharjeel or Zeenat Inam Memon' are given 07 clays' time kr cleposit their surety amount with the Nazir of tllis Court.

Tlle petitions stand disposed of in the above terms."

I GE

.r[- * ,/

JUDGE

2l