joekrish
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Jul 9, 2011
- Messages
- 3,223
- Reaction score
- -3
- Country
- Location
I am not a law expert, but what i have asked from some lawyers and also heard it from different talk shows (serious analysts), following are the points, which should be considered while discussions.
1. This particular case in which Musharraf bail was cancelled is about Judges house arrest, its not that famous article 6 treason case.
2. This is a bailable offense, and any accuse who himself appear before the court has the right of bail. In other words, its kind of mandatory for court to grant bail.
3. Only those lawyers can take part in court proceedings, who are formally the part of either defense council or the lawyers of the party, who have filed the plea.
4. All over the world in judicial proceedings, neutrality of judges is utmost important. If in anyway, the hearing judge or judges are a party themselves, they transfer the case to neutral judges.
5. In no way, the judge should ever be sound or feel like taking side with any of the contesting party. Therefore judges usually never gave any remarks about any party what so ever. Its their final decision based on facts, proofs in the light of law, which speaks in the end.
6. FIR is needed to be registered by the suffered party against accused, which forms the base of the trial.
7. Judges themselves cannot include clauses during the course of the trial.
Now, keeping above points in mind, we can conclude very easy, that justice is not being properly served in the case of Musharraf.
* In this case, there is no FIR against Musharraf.
* Out of 60 Judges, who were allegedly arrested after 2007 emergency, none have filed a case or complaint against Musharraf.
* Obviously under the law, no 3rd party other then the actual sufferers can file a plea against the accused.
* The judge who heard the case was the Rawalpindi Bar president in 2007, he was heading lawyers movement against Musharraf. So, going by the principle of neutrality, he is not neutral and hence should not have hear the case in first place.
* During the hearings, Judge made specific remarks against Musharraf, hence take side with the plaintiff, which made him biased towards the defendant. No law of the world allows this that judge himself becomes a party, hence deny the defendant "the right of fair trial".
* During the court proceedings, as the judge clearly knew that he can not order Musharraf arrest in current scenario, he conveniently himself added "anti terrorism clauses" in the case, which is a non-bailable offense.
* It is customary for the courts all around the world to ensure an environment, where both plaintiff and accused feel secure, and no external pressure what so ever effects or pressurized the proceeding of the court. In this case as happened in past few days many times, a large number of lawyers from Islamabad / Rawalpindi bar gathered outside and within court room. They were chanting slogans against Musharraf, and many times tried to personally assaulted him. This is something against the honor of the court. If the accused and his defense council feel insecure even within court room, how can the justice be served.
The judge did nothing in this regard, instead he encourage the violent lawyers by allowing them to speak on the behalf of plaintiff. Those lawyers who were not part of proceedings actually spoke against accused, judge not only allowed them but also appreciate them. How on earth, such trend is being followed in Pakistani judiciary?
Example after example are coming of Judge gardi and Wukla gardi. Arslan Iftikhar case, TuQ case, Memo-gate and now Musharraf case. Judges are setting some dark examples, which will hurt Pakistan very badly in the course of the history. This is a country where persons like Sufi Mohammad and Maulana Abdul Aziz are set free by the courts. Shah Zain Bugti caught with truck loads of illegal weapons is set free. Traitors, who have vowed to take up arms against Pakistan aree given protocol in the name of justice, and former COAS and President is denied even a fair trial, this is Pakistan and sadly yes, i am its citizen.
PS 1: In Pakistani law, the president has immunity against any lawsuits, it includes all those orders which he passed during his tenure as President of Pakistan.
PS 2: Judges were in their houses, no body ever arrested them. There is not an order or witness produced by the plaintiff in this regard.
Great sum up mate, this is exactly what I had in mind when I was reading the article about his arrest. Nothing that he did deserved a non bailable warrant.
What does India have to do with the topic you are discussing regarding your judges and their 'loot'?? 
