ISLAMABAD: The National Accountability Bureau (NAB) on Wednesday filed a review petition in the Supreme Court regarding Khawaja Saad Rafiq and Salman Rafiq’s bail case.
The review petition filed by the NAB additional prosecutor general prayed that the review petition is accepted and the impugned order dated July 20 should be reviewed with all consequences, and paragraphs 18 to 48 and 56 to 70 should be expunged.
The Supreme Court (SC) had made serious remarks and observations against the NAB in the said paragraph.
The apex court in its observations commencing from paras 37 to 38 has elaborated the principles of democracy, freedom, equality, tolerance and social justice which emphasis the constitutional role of Supreme Court. It is pertinent to mention here that the provisions of Articles 4, 9 and 10 of the Constitution take into account the security of persons and lays down the parameters of safeguard as to arrest and detention, however, in juxtaposition to this fundamental right there are exceptions to these provisions of law, holding a position otherwise for the purpose of arrest and detention which clearly state that lawful arrest is no detention or compromise of liberty.
The petition stated that “the question of fairness, proportionality, reasonableness and necessity as observed in paragraph 71 of the judgment under review had a direct bearing on the merits of the case, the ambit of fairness is dependent on the incriminating material collected by the investigators which were scrutinised by the court of competent jurisdiction at the time of framing of charge, the involvement of the accused qua any criminal liability would be taken into consideration as the commission of offences and its proportional and reasonable prosecution were the most important factors in this regard, thus till the final adjudication of the reference proceedings it would be premature to delve on this subject”.
“It is however reiterated for the sake of clarity that the power of arrest was never employed by the petitioner-bureau to extract benefit or cause harassment for the purpose of decision of the case. The courts were independent, the accused and the prosecution were just two parties, the courts adjudicate in a bipartisan manner giving neither party any advantage or disadvantage, therefore grant or refusal of bail was subject to incriminating evidence, thus portraying a picture contrary to facts by the accused was wholly unjustified, therefore incarceration on the refusal of bail was no high handedness by the NAB,” it added.
The petition stated that some remarks made in the judgment would affect the proceedings of the trial court. It would be difficult for the trial court to decide due to these remarks, it further stated.