The Sindh High Court (SHC) has dismissed the petition of a social media activist against blocking of his bank accounts on suspicious transactions reports.
Petitioner Waqar Zaka had filed the petition seeking unblocking of his bank accounts which were blocked due to suspicious transaction reports submitted to the law enforcement agencies by the State Bank of Pakistan (SBP).
A federal law officer submitted that the Financial Monitoring Unit of the SBP had generated suspicious transaction reports under which an FIR had also been registered against the petitioner and that the restraint in respect of bank accounts was also a corollary of the same scenario.
A division bench of the high court headed by Justice Mohammad Iqbal Kalhoro, in a recent hearing of the case, observed that the SBP had generated the suspicious transaction report and required the law enforcement agencies to take remedial/protective measures, culminating in the FIR and the account blockage.
The bench observed that fate of the suspicious transaction reports and the measures taken pursuant thereto shall be determined by the court of competent jurisdiction.
The high court observed that the Article 199 of the Constitution contemplates the discretionary writ jurisdiction of the court and the said discretion may be exercised in the absence of an adequate remedy.
The SHC observed that in the instant case, admittedly, the alternate remedy had yet to be invoked and no case was made out for directly entertaining such matter in the writ jurisdiction.
The high court also observed that even otherwise, the entire premise of the petitioner was based upon disputed questions of fact, requiring detailed factual inquiry, investigation and evidence.
It observed that it was a settled law that the adjudication of disputed questions of fact requiring evidence was not amenable in the exercise of writ jurisdiction.
The court observed that the petitioner’s counsel was unable to set forth a case for the invocation of the discretionary writ jurisdiction of the court and dismissed the petition.
The SHC granted protective bail to woman who was booked by the police for marrying a man without being divorced by her alleged ex-spouse.
Petitioner Sahiba sought quashment of a criminal case registered by her ex-spouse and protection against harassment. She said that she had married Insaf Abbasi of her free will as her ex-spouse had divorced her four months back.
The counsel of the petitioner submitted that she and her second spouse may be granted protective bail so that they could appear before the trial court and avail remedy in accordance with the law. The court converted the petition into an application for protective bail and granted the woman and her second spouse bail for 10 days to enable them to appear before the trial court.