PTI opposition leader granted bail in land grabbing case

KARACHI: The Special Court Sindh Public Property (removal of encroachment) on Monday granted bail to Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf MPA and Sindh Assembly opposition leader Haleem Adil Sheikh in a land encroachment case.

Sheikh was booked by the Anti-Encroachment Force Zone I for alleged illegal occupation of 40 acres of state land near the Northern Bypass in the Manghopir area. The court had earlier recalled his interim pre-arrest bail for not joining the investigation.

The applicant’s counsel submitted that his client was falsely implicated in the case and requested the court to grant him bail. After hearing the arguments of the counsel, the court granted Sheikh bail subject to furnishing a surety of Rs100,000.

On Saturday, when his bail application had come up for hearing, the judge was informed that the state prosecutor was suffering from the dengue fever, due to which he could not turn up at the court. The judge had adjourned the hearing until August 22. Last Wednesday, the lawmaker had appeared before the special court as it took up his plea for confirmation of his interim pre-arrest bail granted to him against a surety of Rs100,000. The investigating officer submitted a report to the court, stating that the accused had not yet joined the investigation.

The judge had noted that Sheikh was granted bail before arrest on June 22 with a direction to join the investigation, but when the matter came up for hearing on July 18, the investigating officer informed the court that he had not yet joined the probe.

He said Sheikh’s lawyer requested time to comply with the court direction and the hearing was put off until August 4 when the accused didn’t appear in the court and filed an application seeking to condone his absence, which was accepted and the hearing was adjourned till August 17. The state counsel argued that the PTI MPA had disobeyed the direction of the court, rendering his bail application liable to be dismissed on this ground. On the other hand, defence counsel Zahoor Mahsud contended that his client contacted the IO time and again for the purpose but he didn’t cooperate with him and when Sheikh went to his office to have his statement recorded, he was not available.

“It is hard to believe that the investigation officer did not mark attendance of the accused or he was not available when the accused appeared for joining the investigation,” the judge remarked.