Find a Lawyer

EHSAN ULLAH SHAH versus NATIONAL ACCOUNTABILITY BUREAU (NAB)

9 Sections 9 (a) (ix) and (b) ail Bail, Inc. - The National Accountability Bureau for offering fraudulent members to members of the public by offering monthly profits to a large number of members. Was arrested on a charge of fraud. ib An Independent Business - Justification Banking Several documents in banking showed that a large amount of money was paid to the applicants' accounts and they were withdrawn, which they failed to adequately explain many In many cases, Applicants were involved in a banking transaction with other suspects unable to understand again that they had allegedly made a fraudulent claim and accused the other accused - if that was the case. There should be no mutual banking transaction between the beneficiaries and the * other accused persons. Was this the case with investors and the scandal that was shared between the applicants and other co-accused, all of whom were close in reference to the ly - the current joint criminal business case of which Each of the accused played their part in the pursuit of a criminal cause and was aware of it and could not have been achieved without the active participation of all involved - make all the accused responsible for a crime or to a lesser extent Applicants were linked to such a heinous crime, that is, suspects are treated as religious scholars and poor. Intellectuals deceive people into investing large sums of their hard earned money. The product is reported to be Islamic Allen products with high rate of profit

P L D 2017 Sindh 402 

Before Ahmed Ali M. Shaikh and Mohammed Karim Khan Agha, JJ

EHSAN ULLAH SHAH and another—Petitioners

versus

NATIONAL ACCOUNTABILITY BUREAU (NAB) through Chairman and another—Respondents

Constitutional Petition No.D-832 of 2016, decided on 4th May, 2016.

National Accountability Ordinance (XVIII of 1999)—

—S. 9(a)(ix) & (b)—Bail, refusal of— Cheating members of public at large—Petitioners were arrested by National Accountability Bureau on allegation of defrauding members of public at large by offering attractive monthly profit in the garb of Rib'a-free business—Validity— Numerous banking documents showed that large amounts of money was paid into and withdrawn from accounts of petitioners which they had failed to adequately explain—In many cases, petitioners' banking transactions were interlinked with other accused which again they were unable to adequately explain bearing in mind that they claimed ignorance of scam and placed blame on other accused persons—If that was so, there should be no interrelated banking transactions between petitioners and*other accused persons—Only reasonable inference was that such money belonged to investors and was fruits of scam which was shared between petitioners and other co-accused persons, in the reference who were all closely related—Present was more a case of joint criminal enterprise whereby every accused had played his role in order to achieve a criminal object and they all were aware of and could not have been achieved without active participation of all involved—All accused persons were to bear responsibility to a lesser or greater extent for commission of offence—Petitioners were linked to such heinous offence, i.e., accused persons posing as religious scholars and abusing trust of poor religiously minded people by duping them into investing huge amounts of their hard earned money in Islamic oriented products with allegedly high rates of return which they had no intention of honouring, an offence which was becoming more and more common— Bail was refused in circumstances, [pp. 407, 409] A & B

Rafiq Haji Usman v. Chairman NAB 2015 SCMR 1575 distinguished.

Ch. Muhammad Ashfaq v. State 2015 SCMR 1716 rel.

Zaheer ul Hassan Minhas for Petitioners.

advocate from Muzaffargarh lawyer