Punjab Inspector General of Police (IGP) Dr Usman Anwar could not satisfy the Lahore High Court upon repeated queries on Friday regarding why a woman social media activist of the Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) had been arrested in a third case after having been granted bail.
“Why Khadija Shah was arrested in the third case after she had been granted bail; why the police preferred to wait till the court’s final order about her bail; why was she not interrogated during custody and who will guarantee that she will not be arrested in another case if she is granted bail in the third case?,” the judge asked.
LHC Justice Ali Baqar Najafi fixed November 10 for the next hearing with direction to the IGP to submit a comprehensive written reply.
The judge was hearing a plea filed by Khadija Shah for the initiation of contempt proceedings against police high-ups over arresting her in the third case by deceiving the court through a report submitted earlier in response to her petition seeking details of the first information reports (FIRs) registered against her anywhere.
Read ATC sends Khadija on 14-day judicial remand
She stated that the police, in its report, had mentioned two FIRs.
However, when she was granted bail by a division bench of the LHC, the police arrested her in connection with the third FIR.
As proceedings commenced, Justice Najafi remarked that the report prepared by the IGP and submitted by capital city police officer (CCPO) in the case was not satisfactory.
The IGP argued that the due process had been adopted in the arrest and there was a lot of evidence that proved the involvement of the applicant in the May 9 riots cases.
“Mr IGP, you delivered a good speech” but the court’s queries are still there that how Khadija Shah was arrested in the third FIR soon after being granted bails in two FIRs by the division bench of the LHC and despite the CCPO’s report that had revealed only two FIRs against her, Justice Najafi remarked.
He asked what were the actual reasons of the police waiting till the decision about the bail of the accused. The IGP argued that the May 9 riots were a sensitive issue and developments had occurred each minute.
Also read May 9 condemnation ‘won’t leave culprits off hook’
He said some of the accused had been arrested recently, who had revealed where the conspiracies had been hatched. After conducting investigation, the police had found Shah’s involvement in another case, he claimed.
Khadija Shah had been in the custody of the police and could she not be investigated? Justice Najafi asked.
The IGP replied that the police could not conduct proper investigation initially because if social media pressure on officials. He said there were several accused persons against whom investigation was required.
“Your answer is not satisfactory,” Justice Najafi remarked.
Khadija Shah’s counsel Advocate Sameer Khosa opposed the IGP’s version, alleging harassment is abuse of law in the case.
He argued that his client had nothing to do with offences made out in the FIRs. She had been in custody for a long time but no statements about her from any other accused had surfaced. He said it was astonishing that statements of other accused had been recorded for the preparation of the third FIR while the petitioner had been granted bail in two FIRs by the LHC bench.
Physical remand denied
Meanwhile, a judicial magistrate turned down the Federal Investigation Agency’s (FIA) request for physical remand of Shah and sent her to jail on a 14-day judicial remand.
The FIA produced the accused before the magisterial court in a case registered against her for tweeting controversial content inciting people for the May 9 riots.
Published in The Express Tribune, November 4th, 2023.
COMMENTS
Comments are moderated and generally will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive.
For more information, please see our Comments FAQ