IHC issues notice to NAB chief, others on Nawaz's plea for bail on medical grounds

ISLAMABAD: An Islamabad High Court (IHC) bench on Tuesday issued notices to the National Accountability Bureau (NAB) chairman and others on a fresh petition by former prime minister Nawaz Sharif seeking release from Kot Lakhpat Jail on medical grounds in the Al-Azizia Steel Mills case.

The division bench comprising Justice Aamer Farooq and Justice Miangul Hassan Aurangzeb heard the case.

At the start of the hearing, Justice Kayani asked about the health condition of the PML-N supremo.

“Is Nawaz Sharif being treated or not,” he asked.

Sharif’s lawyer Khawaja Haris said he had attached medical experts’ prognosis about his client with the bail petition.

The former prime minister through his lawyer filed the petition seeking suspension of his seven-year sentence and grant of post arrest bail on medical grounds.

The counsel, citing medical reports, stated that his client’s condition is critical and he required a stress-free environment for his treatment. He added Sharif is suffering from various diseases that could prove to be life-threatening.

He recalled that the Supreme Court had earlier suspended the sentence of Sharif for six weeks so that he could get medical treatment from physicians of his choice.

The lawyer said medical tests of the former prime minister suggested, “the multifarious diseases/ailments of the petitioner [Sharif] are not only life threatening, the threat to the petitioner’s life on account of these co-morbidities is bound to aggravate in case the petitioner is exposed to any physical or psychological stress”.

He also rejecting an impression that the petition is aimed at allowing Sharif a chance to get treatment abroad and secure NRO-like deal.

“The propaganda launched by the government functionaries/political opponents of the petitioner, and a particular segment of the print and electronic media, to the effect that the petitioner is seeking bail on medical grounds for his treatment abroad, is actually seeking an NRO, is not only tantamount to contempt of court, it is also malicious and false to the knowledge of such politicians and TV anchors, and stands comprehensively refuted by the past conduct of the petitioner”.