ISLAMABAD: The Supreme Court, on Friday, issued notice to the federal government and the investigation officer in ‘torture’ of Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) leader Shahbaz Gill during police custody.
A three-judge bench, headed by Justice Ijazul Ahsan, heard Gill’s petition against remanding his physical custody to the police in the sedition case, registered against him for a statement on a private channel. The bench directed the IO to appear in person along with the record on the next date of hearing.
During the proceeding, Justice Mazahar Naqvi inquired from Gill’s lawyer on what basis Gill’s physical remand was given by the trial court. He then remarked that when the prosecution had already got the forensic of the video, which confirmed it was the petitioner’s voice then the police wanted to obtain Gill’s tongue with that he gave the statement?
Advocate Salman Safdar, who represented the petitioner, said that the police have recovered a pistol and other items from his client during custody. Upon that Justice Mazahar said whatever recovery was made from Gill was not relevant to this case. He said Gill had to approach the relevant forum against his torture.
Justice Mandokhail questioned had the police during the PTI government not tortured anyone? Gill’s counsel replied that not many cases of such nature took place, adding his client’s second physical remand was unique in the history of Pakistan.
The counsel stated that the trial judge in his order noted that there were torture marks on Gill’s body. Justice Mazahar remarked whether the judge will appear before the court as a witness.
Dr Shahbaz Gill released from Adiala Jail after IHC grants bail
Justice Mazahar observed that the magistrate is the protector of the rights of the accused. He then asked whether Criminal Procedure Code is applicable to the Supreme Court. Gill’s lawyer replied in positive. He told the bench that the trial court exceeded its power. He said due to Gill’s speech on the TV channels 13 charges were levelled against him.
Justice Mazahar corrected him by saying it was not a speech but an interview, which Gill gave to the channel. He told the lawyer that he has not prepared his case, as he did not know the reason and process of physical remand.
Justice Mandokhail questioned whether the Sessions Court has power to give remand? He further inquired how the apex court could interfere in the investigation. Justice Mazahar noted that the case against Shehbaz Gill is of incitement. He said in Revision the high court can examine the legality of the magistrate’s order.
Gill had challenged the Islamabad High Court (IHC)’s order endorsing his two-day custody to the police despite allegations of torture.
The petition said that Gill was subjected to “the most humiliating and degrading violence in police custody”, and “sufficient evidence was placed before the learned bench, all of which was disregarded by the Court”. It maintained that the IHC had seemingly failed to protect the fundamental and human rights of the petitioner by remanding him to police custody after discovering that he was subjected to torture.
The petition pointed out that the report of the medical board comprising senior doctors and specialists also validated that the petitioner “is suffering from various ailments and diseases” but that the doctors were “pressurised to declare the petitioner as medically fit”.
“Even then the report declared that he was suffering from serious ailments,” the PTI leader maintained in his plea.
The petition stated, “Record was presented by Adiala Jail authorities who made it abundantly clear that the petitioner had bruises, as well as, bodily injuries when he was committed to judicial remand. Therefore, the decision handed down by the learned Islamabad High Court is liable to be set aside for being violative of Articles 9 and 10-A”.
“By ignoring and overlooking the medical evidence of custodial torture while handing back the remand of the petitioner to the local police authorities, the learned court has set a wrong precedence in the criminal jurisprudence of the country,” it stated, adding that the IHC had indirectly approved a “very dangerous and alarming” precedent.
The petition requested that the investigation in the case against Gill be declared illegal and unlawful for prosecution and be set aside straightaway for being violative.
Copyright Business Recorder, 2022
Comments
Comments are closed.