SHC dismisses Sharjeel’s plea for urgent hearing

KARACHI: The Sindh High Court on Friday dismissed former information minister Sharjeel Memon’s application for urgent hearing of bail petition in Rs 5.76 billion corruption case.

Sharjeel Memon had moved fresh petition for obtaining bail in NAB reference after rejection of protective pre-arrest bail from the SHC and the Supreme Court.

Applicant’s counsel Sardar Latif Khosa submitted that his client was unwell and required medical treatment, adding that therefore his bail petition should be heard on urgent basis.

The SHC’s division bench headed by Justice Mohammad Iqbal Kalhoro directed the petitioner’s counsel to file application before office under the rules and dismissed the application for urgent hearing of the petition. It is pertinent to mention that the Sindh High Court on October 23 last year had dismissed protective bail of former information minister Sharjeel Inam Memon, information department officials and advertisement companies’ representatives in Rs 5.76 billion corruption case. Dismissing bail petitions of Sharjeel Inam Memon and 13 others, the court observed: “current case is more a case of a joint criminal enterprise, whereby every accused plays their role in order to achieve a criminal object, all of which they were aware of and could not have been achieved without the active participation of all involved.”

The former information minister was booked by the NAB in corruption reference along with information department officials and advertising companies’ representatives for committing corruption in the award of advertisements of provincial government’s awareness campaigns in electronic media involving over Rs 5.67 billion. Besides Memon, former provincial information secretary Zulfiqar Ali Shalwani, deputy directors of information department Mansoor Ahmed Rajput and Mohammad Yousuf Kaboro, Syed Masood Hashmi of the Orient Communication (PVT) Ltd, Gulzar Ali and Salman Mansoor of Adarts and Inam Akhtar of Evernew Concepts were among the 17 accused cited in the reference.

Moreover, it was alleged that the advertising agencies suppressed the invoices issued by the media and showed much higher amounts, while as per settled practice the advertising agencies were entitled to get only 15 per cent agency commission against the total bill.