Tallat Ishaq v National Accountability Bureau

The petitioner was in custody in an accountability reference. Section 9(b) of the National Accountability Ordinance 1999 excluded the bail provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, so no statutory bail application lay. He moved the High Court under Article 199 of the Constitution instead. The question that reached a larger bench of the Supreme Court was whether, and on what terms, the constitutional jurisdiction could be used to grant bail where the statute had shut the ordinary door.

The Court held that ordinary legislation cannot curtail Article 199. Section 9(b) removes the statutory remedy; it does not touch the High Court's constitutional power to declare a detention to be without lawful authority. But the Court was careful about the width of the gate. Bail through the writ jurisdiction is not a routine substitute for a bail application. It is available where the material against the accused is tenuous, where the trial has been delayed for reasons not attributable to the accused, or where continued detention would work a distinct hardship, including on medical grounds. The judgment gathered the earlier, scattered authority into a single set of numbered principles.

The practical rule, as of mid-2026: a person detained in a NAB matter argues liberty on three axes — the quality of the material, delay, and hardship — and does so before the High Court in its constitutional jurisdiction. The National Accountability (Amendment) Act 2022 and the litigation that followed have altered parts of the accountability framework, including thresholds and forum; the current interaction of those amendments with the bail regime is [EFFECT OF THE 2022 AMENDMENTS AND SUBSEQUENT SUPREME COURT PROCEEDINGS ON BAIL — TO BE VERIFIED]. The constitutional route itself remains good law.

Why it matters

In white-collar cases the question of custody is often decided months or years before any question of guilt. An accused who remains at liberty can instruct counsel, preserve a business, and contest the reference on equal terms. This decision is the reason that remains possible in accountability matters, and its numbered principles are the checklist against which every NAB bail petition is still drafted.