IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PAKISTAN 
(APPELLATE JURISDICTION) 
 
 
PRESENT: MR. JUSTICE MIAN SAQIB NISAR, HCJ 
 
 
MR. JUSTICE MUSHIR ALAM 
 
 
MR. JUSTICE MAZHAR ALAM KHAN MIANKHEL 
 
 
CIVIL PETITIONS NO.3752, 3753 AND 3754 OF 2018 
(Against the judgment dated 19.9.2018 of the Islamabad High 
Court Islamabad passed in WPs Nos.2839 of 2018, 2841 of 2018 
and 2842 of 2018) 
 
 
Chairman NAB through Prosecutor General, Islamabad 
 
…Petitioner(s) 
(In all cases) 
VERSUS 
Mian Muhammad Nawaz Sharif 
In C.P.3752/2018 
Maryam Nawaz Sharif 
In C.P.3753/2018 
Capt. (Retd.) Muhammad Safdar 
In C.P.3754/2018 
 
…Respondent(s) 
 
For the petitioner(s): 
Mr. Muhammad Akram Qureshi, Special 
Prosecutor, NAB 
(In all cases) 
 
Mr. Jahanzeb Khan Bharwana, Addl.P.G. NAB 
 
 
For the respondent(s): 
Khawaja Haris Ahmed, Sr. ASC 
(In C.P.3752/2018) 
 
Mr. Muhammad Amjad Parvez, ASC 
(In C.P.3753/2018) 
 
Not represented 
(In C.P.3754/2018) 
 
 
Date of hearing: 
12.11.2018 
 
ORDER 
 
 
MIAN SAQIB NISAR, CJ.- Leave to appeal is granted in 
these petitions to consider, inter alia, the following points:- 
i. 
Whether in a case where there is a statutory ouster of 
jurisdiction of courts to grant bail pending appeal, the 
constitutional jurisdiction to grant bail can be invoked on 
the same principles or grounds as are available under the 
general law? 
Civil Petitions No.3752, 3753 and 3754 of 2018 
-: 2 :- 
 
ii. 
Whether 
the 
judgment 
dated 
03.08.2016 
in 
C.P. 
No.11618/2016 titled as “Mir Shahjahan Khan Khetran Vs. 
NAB” and Judgment dated 28.11.2014 passed in C.P. 
No.1305/2014 titled as “Muhammad Arshad Vs. Tassaduq 
Hussain @ Mittu and other” is per incuriam as per the ratio 
of the cases reported as Haji Ghulam Ali Vs. The State 
through A.G., N.W.F.P., Peshawar and another (2003 
SCMR 597), Abdul Aziz Khan Niazi Vs. The State through 
Chairman, NAB, Islamabad (PLD 2003 SC 668), Olas Khan 
and others Vs. Chairman NAB through Chairman and 
others (PLD 2018 SC 40), Peer Mukaram-ul-Haq Vs. 
National Accountability Bureau (NAB) through Chairman 
and others (2006 SCMR 1225)? 
iii. 
Whether the scope of the constitutional jurisdiction for grant 
of bail during investigation/trial or release on bail by way of 
suspension of sentence is much wider than the scope of 
grant of bail under the general law, or otherwise? 
iv. 
What are the parameters of tentative assessment of evidence 
and how can it be differentiated from the deeper appreciation 
of evidence particularly in cases involving grant of bail by 
suspending the sentence and release on bail during 
pendency of the appeal? 
v. 
Whether the guidelines provided by the Superior Courts 
regarding ouster of Section 426 of the Code of Criminal 
Procedure, 1898 (Cr.P.C.) are required to be followed for the 
suspension of sentence in cases of NAB? If so, what are the 
principles regulating suspension of the sentence under 
Section 426 Cr.P.C.? 
vi. 
Whether the principles regulating bail under Sections 497 
and 498 Cr.P.C. would also be applicable while considering 
the matter of suspension of sentence? 
vii. 
If in a case the convict is entitled to suspension of sentence 
but the judgment/order suspending the sentence is not 
happily worded, what would be the effect thereof?  
Civil Petitions No.3752, 3753 and 3754 of 2018 
-: 3 :- 
 
viii. 
If a concession of suspension of sentence is once extended 
by the court of appeal, whether the principles of cancellation 
of bail would apply for withdrawal of suspension? 
ix. 
Whether the learned Islamabad High Court has correctly 
interpreted the provisions of Section 9(b) of the National 
Accountability Ordinance, 1999 (Ordinance)? 
x. 
Whether the ground of hardship can be considered while 
suspending the sentence in a NAB case? 
xi. 
Whether the merits of a case can be discussed and 
conclusive findings be given, as done by the learned 
Islamabad High Court in its order dated 19.09.2018, are 
permissible in its constitutional jurisdiction while dealing 
with cases of suspension of sentence? 
xii. 
Whether in a constitutional petition, a miscellaneous 
application filed under Section 561-A, Cr.P.C. can be filed for 
adjudication where the Cr.P.C. is not applicable? 
xiii. 
Whether the learned Islamabad High Court can take up the 
constitutional petition when the main appeals were already 
fixed for hearing? 
xiv. 
Whether a detailed order (consisting of 41 pages) is permissible 
while dealing with the suspension of sentence? 
xv. 
Whether or not the learned Islamabad High Court has 
ignored the guidelines laid down by this Court in case 
reported as Muhammad Shakeel Vs. The State and others 
(PLD 2014 SC 458)? 
xvi. 
Whether the learned Islamabad High Court has properly 
interpreted the provisions of Sections 9(a)(v) and 14(c) (first 
and second part) of the Ordinance read with Articles 117, 122 to 
129 of the Qanun-i-Shahadat Order, 1984 with regards to 
burden of proof and presumption? 
xvii. 
Whether the judgments cited as Ghani-ur-Rehman Vs. 
National Accountability Bureau and others (PLD 2011 SC 
Civil Petitions No.3752, 3753 and 3754 of 2018 
-: 4 :- 
 
1144) and Khalid Aziz Vs. The State (2011 SCMR 136) are 
distinguishable from the facts of the present case? 
 
2. 
 
Let this matter be placed before a larger bench to be 
constituted by the Hon’ble Chief Justice of Pakistan. Re-list on 
12.12.2018.  
 
 
 
 
 
 
CHIEF JUSTICE 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Islamabad, the 
12th November, 2018 
 
 
 
 
 
JUDGE 
 
 
 
 
JUDGE 
M. Azhar Malik/* 
