PESHAWAR, Feb 27: The Peshawar High Court on Tuesday ruled that the high court “has the powers” to hear bail applications in accountability cases under its original jurisdiction.

A division bench comprising Justice Khalida Rachied and Justice Abdul Rauf Lughmani, hearing bail application of a key leader of Jamiat Ulema-i-Islam, Haji Ghulam Ali, observed that after an amendment made to the National Accountability Bureau Ordinance, 1999, last year, the high court could hear bail applications under the Criminal Procedure Code.

Previously, the high court used to hear bail pleas under its constitutional jurisdiction provided through Article 199 of the Constitution. The accused used to file writ petitions and not bail applications, as the NAB Ordinance had ousted the jurisdiction of high court to hear bail applications under section 497 and 498 of CrPC.

The bench directed the official concerned of the high court that the case should be fixed on March 4 before a single bench as normally a single bench entertained bail applications. The accused-applicant, Haji Ghulam Ali has been facing trial for possessing assets to the tune of Rs300 million, which were disproportionate to his known sources of income.

The court observed that previously section 9 (b) of the NAB Ordinance stated: “All offences under this ordinance shall be non-bailable and, notwithstanding anything contained in section 426, 491, 497, 498 and 561 A or any other provision of the Code, or any other law for the time being in force, no court, including the High Court, shall have jurisdiction to grant bail to any person accused of any offence under this ordinance.” However, through Ordinance XXXV of 2001, the words ‘high court’ were omitted from the said provision.

Special prosecutor of NAB, Kamran Arif, contended before the bench that through section 9(b) of the NAB Ordinance the original jurisdiction of the high courts, as far as bail under the CrPC was concerned, was ousted. Referring to the amendments in the said ordinance, the counsel argued that it was clearly mentioned that no court had the jurisdiction to grant bail under the CrPC, adding that the high court was also a court.

The bench observed that in the definition of court in the ordinance, it was clearly mentioned that the court meant an accountability court.

Mr Arif argued that the high court could only hear bail pleas under its constitutional jurisdiction provided under Article 199 of the Constitution. He further added that a two-member bench normally entertained petitions under its constitutional jurisdiction.

Senior advocate Mr Sardar Khan appeared for Mr Ali and contended that bail could be granted to an accused under the NAB Ordinance. He referred to the case of Chaudhry Ahmad Mukhtar, who was allowed bail by the high court.