Tweets case: IHC approves Azam Swati’s bail

  • Court directs PTI senator to submit bonds worth Rs200,000
Updated 02 Jan, 2023

The Islamabad High Court (IHC) approved on Monday the bail of Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) Senator Azam Swati in a case related to controversial tweets about senior military officers.

IHC Chief Justice Amir Farooq announced the verdict reserved earlier today, and directed the senator to submit bonds worth Rs200,000.

In his plea, Swati said that he was “falsely implicated due to political influences of a hostile regime” and the cases against him were registered with “malafide intention”.

The petition stated that the entire case against the PTI senator consisted of a “documented allegation” and that there was no “useful purpose” of keeping him in custody.

Background

Swati was arrested by the Federal Investigation Agency (FIA) on November 27 in a case related to controversial tweets against the military leadership.

This was the second time in less than two months that Swati was arrested.

Islamabad court rejects Azam Swati’s bail plea

The arrest came after the FIA booked him in a case registered under Section 20 of the Prevention of Electronic Crime Act 2016 (Peca), which deals with offences against the dignity of a person.

A number of first information reports were registered against him in Balochistan and Sindh for using “derogatory language” and “provoking the people against the army" after which he was handed over to Balochistan police.

The Balochistan High Court (BHC) ordered to quash all FIRs against Swati, before granting him bail last week. However, he was handed over to the Sindh police.

Later, the Sindh High Court’s Hyderabad registry also barred the police from arresting Senator Swati in cases lodged against him within the jurisdiction — which includes Mithi, Nawabshah, and Hyderabad.

At the same hearing, the Sindh prosecutor general had informed that the PTI leader had been shifted back to Islamabad, where his judicial remand was extended for another 15 days in the FIA case.

Read Comments