MALIK HAQ NAWAZ, J.---The petitioner is in judicial lockup on the basis of a reference No. 03/2016, under section 18(g) and other enabling provisions of National Accountability Ordinance, 1999. The reference has been submitted to the learned Judge Accountability Court Gilgit vide letter No. R- NAB/GB/COM/(05)/ 2012/R-501545/144 dated 30-05-2016.
2. The present petitioner filed a Writ Petition No. 34/2016 before this Court for grant of bail, which was allowed by this Court on 28-06-2016.
3. The learned trial Court took cognizance of the case on 30-06-2016. The accused Shah Murad, Mir Baz Ali, Fayaz and Muhammad Nasir were marked present being in judicial custody, while rest of the accused namely Syed Hadi, Ghulam Sydain, Syed Ahmed Kazmi and Rao Muhammad Ikhlaq were marked as absconder.
4. National Accountability Bureau through its Chairman filed Cr. Appeal No. 23/2016 in Cr. PLA No. 26/2016 for cancellation of the bail which was allowed to the petitioner by this Court. The Hon'ble Apex Court was please to allow the petition and the bail granting order of this Court was recalled vide judgment dated 08-11-2016. The detail judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court was delivered on 06.01.2017. Para 9 of the said judgment is re-produced for ready reference:-- "9. In view of the above discussions, we converted this petition into an appeal and the same was allowed by our short order dated 08-11-2016 consequent thereto the impugned judgment dated 28-06-2016 in Writ Petition No. 34/2016 passed by the learned Gilgit-Baltistan Chief Court was set aside the bail granted to the respondent namely Muhammad Nasir son of Bobulo Ex. Director Education Department Gilgit-Baltistan was cancelled. These were the reasons for the said short order."
5. However in para 10 of the said judgment, following direction were given to the Judge Accountability Court Gilgit. Para 10 is re-produced as under:-- "10. The learned National Accountability Bureau Court Gilgit is also directed to hear and conclude the case on its own merits expediously within a period of six (06) months without influencing by any of observation(s) either made by this Court or by the learned Chief Court."
6. The petitioner has now filed Writ Petition No. 124/2017 for concession of bail, mainly on the ground that the direction of Apex Court has not been followed and only 7 PWs out of 29 have yet been examined and early trial of the case is not insight. The learned counsel drew our attention towards the various order sheets of the trial Court, to substantiate his contention, that delay in conclusion of trial is not on the part of petitioner and the prosecution is using delay tactics just to add into the agonies and miseries of the petitioner. The learned counsel further contended that beside the clear cut direction of Hon'ble Apex Court, the mandatory provisions of section 16 of NAB Ordinance-1999 have also been violated.
7. On the other hand the learned Special Prosecutor NAB argued the case with vehemence and submitted that the case is at the verge of conclusion and only few witnesses remains to be examined and the petitioner is involved in huge corruption. Per learned Prosecutor his release on bail would amount to add premium to his credit and will encourage like minded triminals .
8. We heard both the parties at length and perused the available record with their valuable assistance.
9. The bail granted by this Court on 28-06-2016, was recalled by the Hon'ble Apex Court on 08-11- 2016, but at the same time very clear and unequivocal direction were given to the trial Court to conclude the trial of the petition within aperiod of (06) months. The scrutiny of order sheets shows that only (09) PWs have been examined against 29 PWs and early conclusion of trial is not in sight in near future. Section 16 of NAB Ordinance also depicts that trial of the accused booked in NAB case shall be conducted on day to day basis and shall be completed within 30 days. The Hon'ble Apex Court has allowed (06) months time for conclusion of trial. Any direction issued by the Apex Court has binding effect not only for the subordinate judiciary but for all the executive authorities and violation thereof amounts to contempt of Court. Article 63 of Self Empowerment and Governance Order 2009 is re-produced for ready reference:-- "63: Decisions of Supreme Appellate Court binding on other Courts.- any decision of the Supreme Appellate Court shall, to the extent that it decides a question of law or is based upon or enunciates a principle of law, be binding on all other Courts in the Gilgit-Baltistan".
10.Without commenting on the other merit/demerit of the case, we are of the view that non- compliance of the directives of Hon'ble Apex Court, has entitled the petitioner for concession of bail.
The Writ Petition No. 124/2017 is allowed. The petitioner is allowed bail subject to furnishing of bail bonds in the sum of Rs. 10,00,000/- (ten lac) with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of Judge Accountability Court Gilgit.
11. The above writ petition is disposed of accordingly.