Punjab minister digs out ‘evidence of torture’ on Shahbaz Gill
Shahbaz Gill under police custody. PHOTO: EXPRESS/FILE
Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf leader Shahbaz Gill carried torture marks on his body at the time he was brought to the Adiala Jail on judicial remand but the jail officials did not informed the relevant authorities, Punjab Home Minister Hashim Dogar said on Sunday.
Dogar paid a surprise visit to the Adiala Jail in Rawalpindi. Later, the minister said that the information recorded in the jail entry register proved the position of the PTI that Gill – the chief of staff of the party chairman Imran Khan – was tortured before coming to the jail.
The PTI has alleged that Gill was tortured, while in custody of the police earlier this month. However, the government as well as the police denied the allegations, while Interior Minister Rana Sanaullah saying on Sunday that the party was spreading lies to divert public attention from Gill’s controversial statement.
Gill was arrested on August 9, after registration of a sedition case at the Kohsar police station of the federal capital over his controversial remarks to a private TV channel. He was produced before the judicial magistrate the next day and on August 12, he was sent to jail on judicial remand.
Also read: Imran 'faking' Gill's torture to divert public: Rana Sanaullah
Punjab Minister Dogar said that when Gill was brought to Adiala Jail on judicial remand, the prison staff conducted his medical examination as per rules, which revealed unusual marks of torture on his body. The medical officer registered these marks in his preliminary examination report, he added.
According to the rules and regulations, the Jail Superintendent is bound to inform the sessions judge and the police about the marks of injury. However, the minister said that the then jail superintendent did not inform anyone about the marks of torture.
“Strict action will be taken against the jail superintendent and the relevant authorities for this serious negligence,” Dogar said. “It will be investigated whether it was negligence or the jail superintendent acted at someone else’s insistence.”