Quantcast
Tuesday , September 19 2017
Breaking News
Home / Business / IHC grants transit bail to SECP chairman
IHC grants transit bail to SECP chairman

IHC grants transit bail to SECP chairman

ISLAMABAD: Islamabad High Court (IHC) Tuesday granted transit bail to Security and Exchange Commission of Pakistan (SECP) Chairman Zafar Ul Haq Hijazi, against Rs10,000 surety bands, till July 17.

Justice Mohsin Akhtar Kayani granted the bail to the petitioner in a case directed by the apex court under Section 466, 471 of PPC read with Section 5 of Anti Corruption Act.

During the course of proceedings, Sheikh Zameer Hussain counsel for the petitioner appeared before the bench and requested to grant the pre-arrest bail till final decision of trial in subordinate court saving him from unjustified harassment.

He apprised the court that local police/FIA was making hectic efforts to arrest the petitioner and all out efforts are being made to deny the opportunity to approach the trial court. He said his client was ready to join the investigation as and when so required and to furnish adequate security to the entire satisfaction of the court.

He said the petitioner was an old man of 64 years and had kidney transplant in 2001 for end stage renal disease and under regular follow up treatment however his detention would be injurious and a danger to his life.“The case is outcome of malice in fact and the law. There is no evidence on the record even prima facia to constitute any of offence and yet the FIA registered the case which is a case of mala fides,” the counsel maintained.

Earlier, the IHC registrar raised objections on the petition for pre-arrest bail and advised Hijazi’s counsel to approach the ‘relevant forum for the matter.’

However, the hearing was later fixed in the court of Justice Mohsin Akhtar Kayani along with the registrar’s objections.

Rejecting the pre-arrest bail request, the court directed the petitioner to approach the relevant court. At this, the petitioner’s counsel requested transit bail to which the court replied that the original petition needed to be revised in that case.