ISLAMABAD: A District and Sessions Court on Tuesday rejected the post-arrest bail petition of Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) chairman and former prime minister Imran Khan’s chief of staff, Dr Shahbaz Gill, in the sedition case.
Additional District and Sessions Judge Zafar Iqbal, while announcing its reserved nine pages detailed judgment dismissed Gill’s bail petition. The court on August 29 reserved its verdict on Gill’s bail plea after hearing arguments from Gill’s counsel Burhan Moazzam and the special prosecutor, Raja Rizwan Abbasi.
The judgment says keeping in view the opinion/statement of the accused, peculiar circumstances, and said provisions of law, prima facie, the accused has, at least, committed the offence under Section 131 PPC which falls within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 CrPC and no codal formality under section 196 CrPC is required for lodging of FIR for the offence.
It says that sufficient incriminating material is available on the record against the accused; therefore, this bail petition is dismissed. It is made clear that all the observations made in this bail order are tentative in nature and will have no effect on the merits of the case.
The court judgment says that statement of the accused is sensational which is sufficient for disturbing harmony and discipline in the most respected institution of Pakistan i.e. Pakistan Army. The opinion expressed by the accused is not in the public interest and integrity of the country. Law does not provide that an accused shall become invariably entitled to grant of bail in every case, it says.
The court said at the very outset, Burhan Moazzam Malik advocate, the counsel of the accused has rendered an unconditional apology on behalf of the accused if the feeling of any person is hurt regarding the bona fide statement of the accused. He cannot imagine persuading the public to break the law in the shape of mutiny and sedition. He is the chief staff officer of PTI chairman Imran Khan, who is the most popular leader of the country and the accused has been implicated in this case for political motives. Pick and choose has been made by the complainant regarding the statement of the accused and the statement is misconstrued, misinterpreted, and twisted by the complainant for ulterior design.
According to the judgment, the counsel further says that the time of occurrence is unknown as per FIR and this fact depicts that the complainant is not an eyewitness of the occurrence and he has got registered FIR of this case on the basis of hearsay information. Questions were put on the accused by the anchor of the program regarding Strategic Media Cell and the accused gave answers from a specific perspective, the counsel further argued. The complainant has leveled vague allegations which have not been corroborated by any person, he said, adding that he has no authority to give his own meanings to the statement of the accused.
The transcript of the statement of the accused is available on the record and no offence is made out. He has not uttered anything which shatters his nationalism and patriotism. The accused has faced political victimisation in the shape of this case and he remained subject to torture during his physical remand. No material evidence has been collected by the investigating officer against him and he is facing the agony of incarceration just for nothing.
He has the fundamental right of freedom of expression as is enshrined in the constitution of Pakistan and he has exercised his right. The defense counsel also argued on the legal aspect of the case by stressing that no complaint is made by order of, or under authority from, the federal government or the provincial government concerned, or some officer empowered on this behalf by either of the two governments as per section 196 CrPC against the accused. The case against the accused is fit for further inquiry and he is no more required by the police for further investigation; therefore, he may kindly be released on bail, the defense counsel said.
On the other hand, special prosecutor, Abbasi has argued that there is no denial from the side of the accused that the transcript regarding his statement made on electronic media is forged and fabricated, and as such he has admitted contents of the transcript. It was not necessary for the complainant to reproduce the whole transcript in the FIR of this case. The complainant has not made any pick and choose regarding the statement of the accused and he highlighted the objectionable contents at the time of lodging of the FIR, he said.
Abbasi said that the transcript is the admitted document and it establishes the commission of crime made by the accused. Requirement of Section 196 CrPC in the shape of taking permission of the central government for lodging of the FIR is fulfilled and this legal aspect may be considered when the challan will be submitted for trial. Sufficient incriminating material is available on the record against the accused and the offence falls within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 CrPC; therefore, this bail petition may kindly be dismissed.
Copyright Business Recorder, 2022
Comments
Comments are closed.