LAHORE – A Lahore High Court (LHC) division bench on Monday, adjourning the hearing of Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz Vice President Maryam Nawaz’s bail petition in Chaudhry Sugar Mills (CSM) case till October 29, sought arguments from the parties.
The division bench comprising Justice Ali Baqar Najafi and Justice Sardar Ahmad Naeem heard the post-arrest bail petition of the PML-N leader, wherein Additional Prosecutor General Jehanzaib Bharwana represented the National Accountability Bureau (NAB) and Advocates Azam Nazir Tarar and Amjad Pervaiz appeared on behalf of the petitioner.
During the proceedings, the bench asked whether Maryam Nawaz had been allowed to meet her ailing father, Muhammad Nawaz Sharif, in hospital.
To which, petitioner’s counsel submitted that she was living with his father in hospital. He further stated that the bureau obtained physical remand of his client for three times but now she was on judicial remand.
In response to a query, NAB’s prosecutor submitted parawise comments to the bail plea on behalf of the bureau.
At this, the bench asked petitioner’s counsel Azam Nazir Tarar whether he needed time for preparation, adding that if he was ready then the bench would hear the arguments today.
However, the counsel stated that he would advance his arguments after preparation on Tuesday (OcT 29), while pleading with bench to adjourn the matter.
Subsequently, the bench adjourned matter till October 29 and sought arguments from parties.
The bench initially fixed the petition for October 30 but made it short to October 28 while hearing a civil miscellaneous application of Maryam Nawaz for her release on humanitarian grounds to look after his father in hospital, on October 25.
The NAB accused Maryam Nawaz of committing money laundering through investments of huge amounts being main shareholder of the CSM.
Maryam Nawaz through her bail plea complained about being subjected to double jeopardy, saying, a JIT made in Panama papers had already investigated the same matter and decided to not file any reference. She also questioned jurisdiction of the NAB’s chairman for approving the impugned inquiry under the Anti-Money Laundering Act 2010.
