The Lahore High Court (LHC) on Monday expressed displeasure over incomplete details of a report submitted on behalf of the federal interior ministry about a record of first information reports (FIR), registered anywhere, against Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf’s (PTI) leader Shahbaz Gill.
Justice Tariq Saleem Sheikh presided over the hearing of protective bail filed by Gill after federal special public prosecutor Raja Rizwan Abbasi confirmed the registration of the FIR.
It is pertinent to note that in previous proceedings, the interior secretary was directed to submit a report about case details by February 6 (today).
Read Govt withdraws plea seeking cancellation of Shahbaz Gill's bail
As proceedings commenced today, an official representing the interior ministry submitted the report before the court, revealing the registration of two FIRs in Quetta, four in Sindh and two in Balochistan.
Petitioner’s counsel Rana Abdul Shakoor Khan argued that complete details of the FIRs are not being shared despite court orders.
Justice Sheikh then observed that details of some police stations, wherein the FIRs had been lodged, were missing. The report stated that in one FIR the challan had been submitted before the court but did not mention the court’s name.
Subsequently, the LHC justice extended protective bail of the PTI leader by February 13 and once again directed the interior secretary to come up with the complete report.
It is worth mentioning that Islamabad High Court (IHC) had granted post-arrest bail to Gill in a sedition case.
Also read: PTI's Shahbaz Gill brought to court in ambulance
However, the respondent's side challenged this order in the Supreme Court of Pakistan (SC).
Meanwhile, federal special public prosecutor Raja Rizwan Abbasi filed an application withdrawing the aforesaid appeal contending the petitioner had repeated the offense and consequently a new FIR had been registered against him.
The PTI leader had then approached the LHC for protective bail.
COMMENTS (4)
Comments are moderated and generally will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive.
For more information, please see our Comments FAQ