The Sindh High Court’s (SHC) referee judge has dismissed a petition seeking pre-arrest bail filed by Aijaz Hussain Jakhrani, Pakistan Peoples Party (PPP) leader and adviser to the Sindh chief minister on prisons and inter-provincial coordination, in a corruption reference.
The matter was placed before the SHC’s Justice Nadeem Akhtar for his opinion as a referee judge following the split judgment of a two-member division bench in the matter of Jakhrani’s interim pre-arrest bail.
The PPP leader had approached the SHC for obtaining pre-arrest bail in a corruption reference pertaining to misuse of authority and misappropriation of government funds by violating the codal formalities for payments to contractors in development schemes in Khairpur and Jacobabad, allegedly causing a loss to the national exchequer to the tune of Rs310 million.
A member of the bench had earlier confirmed the pre-arrest bail of Jakhrani on December 15, 2020, subject to depositing entire amount of the liability against the petitioner in the reference. However, the other member of the bench had recalled the interim pre-arrest bail issued in favour of the petitioner.
The referee judge after hearing the arguments of the counsel and perusal of the case record observed that another bench of the court had earlier dismissed a petition for pre-arrest bail in presence of prima facie evidence against the petitioner.
The SHC observed that the petitioner had filed a review application before the court which was also dismissed by holding that evidence available against him in the reference connected him with the alleged offence. The referee judge observed that the petitioner did not challenge the high court order with regard to the rejection of his pre-arrest bail before the Supreme Court.
The judge observed that the questions whether the pre-arrest bail in the corruption reference against the petitioner could be declined and whether the order of his pre-arrest bail in the said reference was sustainable could only be decided by the Supreme Court.
The high court observed that such questions could not be agitated before or decided by the division bench of the court as the said bench could not sit in the appeal against an order passed by another bench of the court.
The referee judge disagreed with a view observed by one member of the division bench who had granted interim pre-arrest bail to the petitioner, and agreed with the bench member who had observed that the petition was liable to be dismissed.
The referee judge observed that the matter shall now have to be placed before the division bench for announcing the final order based on a majority opinion and asked the office to place the matter before the SHC chief justice for constituting a division bench for such purpose.