' By this single order two writ petitions bearing Writ Petition No,4591 of 2007 and 4592 of 2007 titled Tariq Shahbaz v. Chairman NAB and others and Khalid Shahbaz v. Chairman NAB are being disposed of together being out-come of Reference No,41 of 2002 pending trial in the learned Accountability Court No,IV, Lahore. The allegation against the petitioners is of commission of offences of corruption and corrupt practices falling within the ambit of section 9(a) read with all enabling provisions of National Accountability Ordinance, 1999, on the ground that petitioners along with their father Shahbazuddin Chaudhry got investments of huge amounts from the people at large in their money exchange business with promise of huge returns in the shape of profits and interests, however, cheated and defrauded the people.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that petitioners are in jail for the last about five years and are facing trial before the learned Accountability Court. However, submitted that the conclusion of the trial is not foreseeable in the near future while, according to section 16 of the National Accountability Ordinance, 1999, the trial before Accountability Court should be concluded within thirty days. He submitted that previously as well petitioner had approached this Court through writ petitions. However, as at the time of decision of last writ petition bearing No,12014 of 2005, which was disposed of on 1-12-2005, this Court had observed as follows:-- ' "We now expect that this case will be completed within the next three weeks, whereafter the case will be set for evidence of the defence. No previous order passed by this Court in this matter will create any hurdle for the trial Court in the implementation of this order, the parties can approach this Court for further decision in the matter.
' Registration of the matter with respect to bail after six weeks from today depends upon the progress of the learned trial Court, after these observations and directions. All the parties are directed to appear before the learned Accountability Court on 6-12-2005."
' The learned counsel submitted that despite said observations by this Court the trial is not concluded and as the same is not expected to be concluded in near future, therefore, petitioners cannot be detained for indefinite period. He also submitted that he is cognizant of the fact that 52 dates of hearing are attributable to him in which due to non-availability of the learned defence counsel the evidence could not be recorded. However, submitted that on 58 occasions/ dates of hearing it was the prosecution who failed to produce evidence. In this way he submitted that prosecution is also equally responsible for the delay in the trial and submitted that petitioners thus are entitled to be released on bail. In support of his contention learned counsel placed reliance on the case of Muhammad Amin Farooqi v. The State and another (Criminal P.L.A. No,664 of 2006), to contend that the Honourable Supreme Court was pleased to allow bail to Muhammad Amin Farooqi keeping in view section 16 of the National Accountability Ordinance, 1999, which requires the Accountability Court to conclude the trial within thirty days. He further submitted that petitioners are also thus entitled to bail. He submitted that the petitions may be accepted.
3. Learned Special Prosecutor, NAB, had vehemently opposed the petitions and has submitted that petitioners are themselves liable for delay in the trial as, according to their own contention, on 52 occasions the learned defence counsel was not available when the prosecution evidence was very much present and thus evidence could not be recorded merely because the defence counsel was not available. He therefore, submitted that petitioners cannot claim their release on bail through the present constitutional petitions as they are themselves liable for the delay in the trial.
4. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties, perused the record and also the case-law referred to above by the learned counsel for the petitioners. As per their own contention the petitioners' counsel representing them in the trial Court was not present or available on said occasions and it were the petitioners who then sought adjournments despite the fact that P.Ws.
Were present on said occasions. Therefore, it does not lie in the mouth of the petitioner to contend that the trial could not be concluded within the stipulated period as provided by section 16 of the said Ordinance. The case-law referred to above by the learned counsel for the petitioners, therefore, being distinguishable on facts and law, is not applicable to the case in hand neither gives any advantage to the petitioners to claim bail. Previous order passed by this Court on 1-12- 2005 in Writ Petition No,12014 of 2005, therefore, would also not help the petitioners to claim bail on account of their own conduct which prima facie shows that they themselves are contributors to delay in the conclusion of the trial. In this view of the matter, we find no merit in these writ petitions and the same are, therefore, dismissed.