IHC grants bail to 23 activists held on sedition charges
Sedition charges were removed from FIR and Section 7 of ATA 1997 added, DC informs the court
Islamabad High Court. PHOTO COURTESY: IHC WEBSITE
ISLAMABAD:
The Islamabad High Court (IHC) on Monday granted bail to 23 activists who were earlier detained for protesting against the arrest of Pashtun Tahafuz Movement (PTM) leader Manzoor Pashteen.
A single-bench comprising IHC Chief Justice Athar Minallah heard the plea against a decision by the additional sessions court denying bail to the activists belonging to PTM and Awami Worker Party (AWP).
Today's hearing
Irked by the absence of IGP Aamir Zulfiqar Khan, the high court’s top judge remarked that the state was responsible for protecting its people.
He questioned the grounds under which the authorities had included the terrorism clause against the activists. “Have you read the top court’s decision defining terrorism?”
“How can you questions one’s patriotism?” he questioned. “Do you believe the courts would turn a blind eye to the matter?”
Deputy Inspector General of Police Waqarud Din Sayed and Deputy Commissioner Muhammad Hamza Shafqaat informed the bench that sedition charges have been removed FIR and the investigating officer has added Section 7 of the Anti-terrorism Act 1997.
The written order
The written order noted that a plain reading of the FIR showed “the offences mentioned therein are, prima-facie, not attached”.
“There is also no material on record in support of the assertions made in the FIR,” added the order.
The high court also observed that the additional sessions judge appears to have “exceeded jurisdiction by making observations in paragraph 7 of its January 30 order without having regarding the recently enunciated law by the top court regarding the scope of the Anti-Terrorism Act 1997.”
“The observations recorded by the learned judge are not in consonance with the principles of fair trial.”
The bench further noted that the respondents, i.e. authorities, acknowledged that “in the facts and circumstances of the case in hand the offence under section 124-A of the PPC, 1860 is not attracted and there has been accordingly deleted.”
Meanwhile, the DC has sought adjournment and assured the high court that the matter will be reviewed in consultation with the IG and IO “in light of principles and law enunciated by the Supreme Court”.
“The petitioners are admitted to bail subject to furnishing personal sureties/ bond to the satisfaction of the deputy registrar of the IHC.”
The Islamabad High Court (IHC) on Monday granted bail to 23 activists who were earlier detained for protesting against the arrest of Pashtun Tahafuz Movement (PTM) leader Manzoor Pashteen.
A single-bench comprising IHC Chief Justice Athar Minallah heard the plea against a decision by the additional sessions court denying bail to the activists belonging to PTM and Awami Worker Party (AWP).
Today's hearing
Irked by the absence of IGP Aamir Zulfiqar Khan, the high court’s top judge remarked that the state was responsible for protecting its people.
He questioned the grounds under which the authorities had included the terrorism clause against the activists. “Have you read the top court’s decision defining terrorism?”
“How can you questions one’s patriotism?” he questioned. “Do you believe the courts would turn a blind eye to the matter?”
Deputy Inspector General of Police Waqarud Din Sayed and Deputy Commissioner Muhammad Hamza Shafqaat informed the bench that sedition charges have been removed FIR and the investigating officer has added Section 7 of the Anti-terrorism Act 1997.
The written order
The written order noted that a plain reading of the FIR showed “the offences mentioned therein are, prima-facie, not attached”.
“There is also no material on record in support of the assertions made in the FIR,” added the order.
The high court also observed that the additional sessions judge appears to have “exceeded jurisdiction by making observations in paragraph 7 of its January 30 order without having regarding the recently enunciated law by the top court regarding the scope of the Anti-Terrorism Act 1997.”
“The observations recorded by the learned judge are not in consonance with the principles of fair trial.”
The bench further noted that the respondents, i.e. authorities, acknowledged that “in the facts and circumstances of the case in hand the offence under section 124-A of the PPC, 1860 is not attracted and there has been accordingly deleted.”
Meanwhile, the DC has sought adjournment and assured the high court that the matter will be reviewed in consultation with the IG and IO “in light of principles and law enunciated by the Supreme Court”.
“The petitioners are admitted to bail subject to furnishing personal sureties/ bond to the satisfaction of the deputy registrar of the IHC.”