Judges detention case: Allegations cannot be treated as evidence, states IHC
Bench observes that terrorism charges added to FIR by a high court judge.
Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif announces plans to take action against Pervez Musharraf under Article 6. PHOTO: NNI
ISLAMABAD:
The Islamabad High Court (IHC), while granting Pervez Musharraf post-arrest bail, observed that there are only statements of some lawyers and that based on allegations and cannot be considered as evidence.
A division bench of the IHC observed in its written judgment that there was no proof against Musharraf except for the statements of some lawyers which were ‘based on allegations’ and hence could not be considered as evidence.
The IHC bench – comprising of Justice Riaz Ahmed Khan and Justice Noorul Haq N Qureshi – observed that terrorism charges under 7-ATA were added by IHC Judge Justice Shaukat Aziz Siddiqui, and that there was nothing on record to connect the accused with the alleged offence.
It was noted that on April 18, 2013 Justice Siddiqui had rejected Musharraf’s bail pleas after adding terrorism charges against him in the FIR against him.
However the bench observed that the FIR registered under Section 344 of Pakistan Penal Code was pertaining to the judges’ detention, which is bailable offence. Hence, the accused was entitled to bail.
According to the judgment, the bench noted that on the basis of the contents of FIR, it can be maintained that the former president had acted in an unconstitutional way, but it was unclear if he had issued orders regarding illegal confinement of judges or their families.
On June 11, 2013 the bench, in its short order, accepted a post-arrest bail of Musharraf in this case against the surety bonds of Rs0.5million.
The former president, however, later filed an appeal in the IHC after the Anti-Terrorism Court rejected his bail citing that he (Musharraf) was a proclaimed offender and that he was not entitled for bail.
Regarding claims of Musharraf being an absconder, the bench observed that the accused had gone abroad with the consent and knowledge of the then government, and was not declared an absconder by any court of law.
The court also maintained that mere escape was an insufficient basis to deny bail, especially when the accused had voluntarily surrendered to the court while seeking pre-arrest bail.
Published in The Express Tribune, June 25th, 2013.
The Islamabad High Court (IHC), while granting Pervez Musharraf post-arrest bail, observed that there are only statements of some lawyers and that based on allegations and cannot be considered as evidence.
A division bench of the IHC observed in its written judgment that there was no proof against Musharraf except for the statements of some lawyers which were ‘based on allegations’ and hence could not be considered as evidence.
The IHC bench – comprising of Justice Riaz Ahmed Khan and Justice Noorul Haq N Qureshi – observed that terrorism charges under 7-ATA were added by IHC Judge Justice Shaukat Aziz Siddiqui, and that there was nothing on record to connect the accused with the alleged offence.
It was noted that on April 18, 2013 Justice Siddiqui had rejected Musharraf’s bail pleas after adding terrorism charges against him in the FIR against him.
However the bench observed that the FIR registered under Section 344 of Pakistan Penal Code was pertaining to the judges’ detention, which is bailable offence. Hence, the accused was entitled to bail.
According to the judgment, the bench noted that on the basis of the contents of FIR, it can be maintained that the former president had acted in an unconstitutional way, but it was unclear if he had issued orders regarding illegal confinement of judges or their families.
On June 11, 2013 the bench, in its short order, accepted a post-arrest bail of Musharraf in this case against the surety bonds of Rs0.5million.
The former president, however, later filed an appeal in the IHC after the Anti-Terrorism Court rejected his bail citing that he (Musharraf) was a proclaimed offender and that he was not entitled for bail.
Regarding claims of Musharraf being an absconder, the bench observed that the accused had gone abroad with the consent and knowledge of the then government, and was not declared an absconder by any court of law.
The court also maintained that mere escape was an insufficient basis to deny bail, especially when the accused had voluntarily surrendered to the court while seeking pre-arrest bail.
Published in The Express Tribune, June 25th, 2013.