Now you see it…: Judge to see whether Gullu faces terror charge
Police fail to produce record in court despite repeated orders.
LAHORE:
A judicial magistrate on Monday decided to examine police record on July 8 (today) to determine if the case against Gullu Butt—who gained notoriety by smashing cars during the June 17 police raid at the Minhajul Quran Secretariat at Model Town—still included Section 7 of the Anti-terrorism Act (ATA).
The judge had previously started hearing a bail petition by Butt. An application submitted by the counsel of individuals whose vehicles were damaged by Butt argued that the magistrate could not entertain the petition in view of inclusion of Section 7 ATA in the FIR. He said only an anti-terrorism court judge could hear the petition.
Despite Judicial Magistrate Syed Shahzad Muzaffar’s directions on the last date of hearing, Faisal Town police did not produce the police record on the bail application. The judge again asked the police to present the record on Monday, but the order was not complied with.
The counsel for the people whose cars were smashed by Butt requested the magistrate to dismiss the bail petition, arguing that he lacked jurisdiction to hear the bail petitions in cases where provisions of the ATA were invoked.
The judge asked the counsel, Syed Farzand Mashhadi, how he knew that the FIR included Section 7 of the ATA. The counsel said all the court had to do to determine that was to examine the FIR attached with Butt’s bail petition. The judge looked at the FIR and said that when he had seen Section 7 ATA mentioned in the FIR Butt’s counsel had informed him that the provision had been removed from the FIR and that was why he had entertained the bail application and summoned the police record.
The counsel said that the court should look at the record rather than listening to claims.
The judge said he would examine the police record and dismiss the bail plea if Section 7 ATA was present in the FIR.
Talking to The Express Tribune advocate Mashhadi said the court had no authority to hear the bail petition because Section 7 ATA was attracted and he did not understand why the court had even summoned the police record on Butt’s bail plea.
The other version
Advocate Majid Hassan Khokhar, counsel for Gullu Butt, claimed that Section 7 of the ATA had been omitted from the FIR and that had been mentioned in police record. He said the court had the authority to entertain the bail petition. Asked why Section 7 ATA was not mentioned in the bail application but was present in the enclosed copy of the FIR, Khokhar said he had omitted a mention of the ATA provision because the same had already been removed by the police.
Butt’s counsel submitted that his client was innocent and was falsely implicated. He said the Pakistan Awami Tehreek (PAT) activists had thrown stones at Butt who had responded by smashing the vehicles.
He said the police had recovered no incriminating evidence from his client, while police officials had claimed on the last hearing that they had recovered a club and a gun from Butt.
Published in The Express Tribune, July 8th, 2014.
A judicial magistrate on Monday decided to examine police record on July 8 (today) to determine if the case against Gullu Butt—who gained notoriety by smashing cars during the June 17 police raid at the Minhajul Quran Secretariat at Model Town—still included Section 7 of the Anti-terrorism Act (ATA).
The judge had previously started hearing a bail petition by Butt. An application submitted by the counsel of individuals whose vehicles were damaged by Butt argued that the magistrate could not entertain the petition in view of inclusion of Section 7 ATA in the FIR. He said only an anti-terrorism court judge could hear the petition.
Despite Judicial Magistrate Syed Shahzad Muzaffar’s directions on the last date of hearing, Faisal Town police did not produce the police record on the bail application. The judge again asked the police to present the record on Monday, but the order was not complied with.
The counsel for the people whose cars were smashed by Butt requested the magistrate to dismiss the bail petition, arguing that he lacked jurisdiction to hear the bail petitions in cases where provisions of the ATA were invoked.
The judge asked the counsel, Syed Farzand Mashhadi, how he knew that the FIR included Section 7 of the ATA. The counsel said all the court had to do to determine that was to examine the FIR attached with Butt’s bail petition. The judge looked at the FIR and said that when he had seen Section 7 ATA mentioned in the FIR Butt’s counsel had informed him that the provision had been removed from the FIR and that was why he had entertained the bail application and summoned the police record.
The counsel said that the court should look at the record rather than listening to claims.
The judge said he would examine the police record and dismiss the bail plea if Section 7 ATA was present in the FIR.
Talking to The Express Tribune advocate Mashhadi said the court had no authority to hear the bail petition because Section 7 ATA was attracted and he did not understand why the court had even summoned the police record on Butt’s bail plea.
The other version
Advocate Majid Hassan Khokhar, counsel for Gullu Butt, claimed that Section 7 of the ATA had been omitted from the FIR and that had been mentioned in police record. He said the court had the authority to entertain the bail petition. Asked why Section 7 ATA was not mentioned in the bail application but was present in the enclosed copy of the FIR, Khokhar said he had omitted a mention of the ATA provision because the same had already been removed by the police.
Butt’s counsel submitted that his client was innocent and was falsely implicated. He said the Pakistan Awami Tehreek (PAT) activists had thrown stones at Butt who had responded by smashing the vehicles.
He said the police had recovered no incriminating evidence from his client, while police officials had claimed on the last hearing that they had recovered a club and a gun from Butt.
Published in The Express Tribune, July 8th, 2014.