IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PAKISTAN 
(Appellate Jurisdiction) 
 
 
PRESENT: 
Mr. Justice Mian Saqib Nisar, HCJ 
Mr. Justice Asif Saeed Khan Khosa 
Mr. Justice Gulzar Ahmed 
Mr. Justice Mushir Alam 
Mr. Justice Mazhar Alam Khan Miankhel 
 
 
Civil Appeals No. 1340, 1341 and 1342 of 2018 and Civil 
Miscellaneous Application No. 9985 of 2018 in Civil Appeal No. 
1340 of 2018 
(Against the judgments dated 19.09.2018 passed by the Islamabad 
High Court, Islamabad in Writ Petitions No. 2839, 2841 and 2842 
of 2018) 
 
 
Chairman, 
National 
Accountability 
Bureau, 
Islamabad 
through Prosecutor-General Accountability, Islamabad  
 
 
 
 
 
(in all cases)  
…Appellant 
 
 
 
 
 
versus 
 
Mian Muhammad Nawaz Sharif 
(in  C.A. 1340 of 2018) 
Maryam Nawaz Sharif  
 
(in C.A. 1341 of 2018) 
Capt. (Retd) Muhammad Safdar 
(in C.A. 1342 of 2018) 
…Respondents 
 
 
For the appellant: 
Mr. Muhammad Akram Qureshi, 
Special 
Prosecutor, 
National 
Accountability Bureau 
 
with Mr. Jahanzeb Khan Bharwana, 
Additional 
Prosecutor-General, 
National Accountability Bureau  
 
(in all cases) 
 
For the respondents: 
Khawaja Haris Ahmad, Sr. ASC 
 
Mr. Mehr Khan Malik, AOR 
(in C.A. 1340 of 2018) 
Mr. Muhammad Amjad Pervaiz, ASC 
Syed Rafaqat Hussain Shah, AOR 
(in C.A. 1341 of 2018) 
N.R. (in C.A. 1342 of 2018) 
 
For the Applicant: 
Nomo. (in C.M.A. No. 9985 of 2018 in 
C.A. 1340 of 2018) 
 
Date of hearing: 
 
 
14.01.2019 
 
Civil Appeals No. 1340, 1341 and 1342 of 2018 
2
 
JUDGMENT 
  
 
Asif Saeed Khan Khosa, J.: 
 
Civil Miscellaneous Application No. 9985 of 2018 in Civil 
Appeal No. 1340 of 2018 
 
 
The 
reason 
mentioned 
in 
the 
application 
seeking 
adjournment has not been found by us to be valid or sufficient for 
the purpose nor is the same supported by any material.  
 
2. 
Through this miscellaneous application the applicant has 
prayed for his impleading as a party to the main appeal but we 
have not felt satisfied with his locus standi or interest in the 
matter. This miscellaneous application is, therefore, dismissed.  
 
Civil Appeals No. 1340, 1341 and 1342 of 2018 
 
3. 
Through these appeals by leave of this Court granted on 
12.11.2018 the appellant/Chairman, National Accountability 
Bureau has sought setting aside of the impugned judgments 
passed by a learned Division Bench of the Islamabad High Court, 
Islamabad in Writ Petitions No. 2839, 2841 and 2842 of 2018 
whereby respondents No. 1 in the present appeals were admitted to 
bail upon suspension of their sentences in their respective criminal 
appeals filed against their convictions and sentences recorded by 
the Accountability Court-I, Islamabad on 19.09.2018 in Reference 
No. 20 of 2017.  
 
4. 
We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have 
gone through the record of the case with their assistance.  
 
5. 
After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and going 
through the relevant record with their assistance we have noticed 
the following shortcomings in the impugned judgments passed by 
the High Court: 
 
Civil Appeals No. 1340, 1341 and 1342 of 2018 
3
 
i) 
Instead of adhering to the guidelines issued and 
recommendations made by this Court in the 
case of Muhammad Shakeel v. The State and 
others (PLD 2014 SC 458) regarding shorter 
format of orders to be passed in matters of bail 
the High Court had written a judgment spanning 
over 41 pages while deciding the matter of bail of 
respondents No. 1 upon suspension of their 
sentences. 
 
ii) 
It is settled law that while deciding an 
application for bail or suspension of sentence 
during the pendency of an appeal merits of the 
case are not adverted to or commented upon in 
any detail whereas in the impugned judgments 
passed by it the High Court had not only 
undertaken a detailed assessment of the merits 
of the case but had also recorded some 
categorical conclusions regarding the same. 
 
iii) 
The raison d’être for suspension of sentence 
during the pendency of an appeal is that due to 
the peculiarities of his case the convict may not 
be kept in custody till his appeal is fixed for 
hearing but in these cases the writ petitions filed 
by respondents No. 1 had been taken up for 
hearing and decision at a time when the main 
appeals were also fixed for hearing.     
 
  
 
iv) 
With reference to many a precedent case a 
Larger Bench of this Court has clarified in the 
case of Tallat Ishaq v. National Accountability 
Bureau, etc. (Civil Petition No. 632 of 2019 
decided on 01.10.2018) that in cases under the 
National Accountability Ordinance, 1999 bail 
may 
be 
granted 
through 
exercise 
of 
Constitutional jurisdiction of a High Court only 
in extraordinary circumstances and in cases of 
extreme hardship but in the present cases no 
such extraordinary circumstance or hardship 
had been referred to by the High Court in the 
impugned judgments passed by it.  
 
v) 
In cases pertaining to the offence under section 
9(a)(v) of the National Accountability Ordinance, 
1999 
this 
Court 
has 
identified 
different 
ingredients of the said offence in the cases of 
Syed Qasim Shah v. The State (2009 SCMR 790), 
Muhammad Hashim Babar v. The State and 
another (2010 SCMR 1697), Khalid Aziz v. The 
State (2011 SCMR 136) and Ghani-ur-Rehman v. 
National Accountability Bureau and others (PLD 
2011 SC 1144) explaining which ingredients are 
Civil Appeals No. 1340, 1341 and 1342 of 2018 
4
to be proved by which party and some of the 
above mentioned precedent cases had been 
referred to by the High Court in the impugned 
judgments passed by it. It had not been 
appreciated by the High Court that in all those 
precedent cases the accused persons had 
accepted 
ownership 
or 
possession 
of 
the 
properties in issue whereas in the present cases 
respondents No. 1 had maintained that the 
relevant properties did not belong to them nor 
were they in possession of the same. The High 
Court had failed to consider whether the above 
mentioned precedent cases were relevant to the 
cases in hand or not and whether in the present 
cases the principle of forfeiture of the defence 
would apply if the accused persons denied 
ownership 
or 
possession 
of 
the 
relevant 
properties but in the circumstances of the case 
such ownership or possession was established.  
 
 
vi) 
While adverting to some deficiencies in the 
evidence vis-à-vis the ingredients of the offence 
under 
section 
9(a)(v) 
of 
the 
National 
Accountability Ordinance, 1999 the High Court 
had failed to consider that conclusions in that 
regard were premature at the stage of bail or 
suspension of sentence because by virtue of the 
provisions of section 428, Cr.P.C. additional 
evidence could be adduced or procured during 
the pendency of the appeals.  
 
6. 
Despite the above mentioned deficiencies found by us in the 
impugned judgments passed by the High Court we are cognizant of 
the legal position that considerations for grant of bail and those for 
its cancellation are entirely different. No allegation has been leveled 
before us regarding any misuse or abuse of the concession of bail 
by respondents No. 1 to these appeals. One of the said respondents 
is already in jail after having been convicted and sentenced in 
connection with another criminal case, another of the said 
respondents is a woman and the law envisages concession for her 
in the matter of bail and the sentence of imprisonment passed by 
the trial court against yet another of the said respondents was 
quite short. In these peculiar circumstances we have not felt 
persuaded to interfere with the jurisdiction and discretion 
exercised by the High Court in the matter of the said respondents’ 
Civil Appeals No. 1340, 1341 and 1342 of 2018 
5
bail upon suspension of their sentences during the pendency of 
their appeals. These appeals are, therefore, dismissed. 
   
 
Chief Justice 
Judge  
 
Judge 
Judge  
 
Judge 
Islamabad 
14.01.2019 
Approved for reporting. 
  
Arif 
