National Accountability Bureau (NAB) has challenged the Lahore High Court (LHC) verdict to grant post-arrest bail to Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz Vice-President Maryam Nawaz in Chaudhry Sugar Mills Limited (CSML) case.

The NAB on Friday filed an appeal under Article 185 of Constitution against the Lahore High Court order dated 31-10-2019 to grant post-arrest bail to Maryam in the Chaudhry Sugar Mills Limited case and requested the apex court to cancel the bail in the interest of justice.

The NAB contended that a division bench of LHC did not appreciate the evidence available in record in its true perspective which prejudiced the case of the prosecution.

It has been "established" in the initial inquiry that millions of rupees amount was transferred in the accounts of M/s Chaudhry Sugar Mills Limited (CSML), wherein the accused Maryam Nawaz Sharif was shareholder of the Mills; therefore, she is beneficiary of the same amounts, the appeal said.

Maryam was appointed director of Ch Sugar Mills in 1992 and held that position till 1997. In 2008 she became the largest shareholder in M/s CSML. It maintained that during the course of inquiry, the petitioner as well as her father were asked to explain the sources of funds for making an investment of Rs 2,000 million in M/s CSML and M/s Shamim Sugar Mills Limited from 2008-2018. However, she did not offer any explanation. She was arrested in execution of warrants of arrest, issued by NAB chairman on 8th August, 2019. She acquired the shares worth Rs 440 million, however, could not explain the sources of funds for making such huge investment during that period.

The appeal stated that the LHC had exercised its discretion in granting bail to accused Maryam Nawaz Sharif wrongly and without jurisdiction since the provisions of the NAO, 1999, the AMLA, 2010 or ratio propounded upon by apex court in the Tallat Ishaq's case do not recognize any distinction between a man and woman accused of offences under the provisions of laws and relief cannot be granted in constitutional jurisdiction on the basis of gender of an accused.

The LHC had failed to take into account the statement of Naseer Lootah under Section 164 CrPC who categorically stated before the judicial magistrate that he has never made any investment in M/s CSML, but the Division Bench of LHC by going into deeper appreciation of the facts of the case had wrongly discarded the statement of Naseer which was not warranted by law.