IHC grants Shahbaz Gill bail in sedition case

[HAIDER]

IHC grants Shahbaz Gill bail in sedition case​

Tahir Naseer Published September 15, 2022 Updated about 5 hours ago




54
LISTEN TO ARTICLE1x1.2x1.5x
The Islamabad High Court (IHC) on Thursday granted bail to PTI leader Shahbaz Gill in a sedition case against Rs500,000 surety bonds.
Details about the duration of bail are yet to be confirmed.
Gill has been detained since August 9, when he was arrested in Islamabad following his controversial remarks allegedly about the army during an ARY News bulletin.
He had approached the IHC for bail on September 2, after a district and sessions court dismissed his plea for post-arrest bail.
IHC Chief Justice (CJ) Athar Minallah took up the plea today and approved Gill’s bail after hearing arguments from both sides.

Arguments by Gill’s lawyer​

Presenting his arguments, Gill’s lawyer, Salman Safdar, recalled that an additional sessions judge had already rejected a plea for the PTI leader’s bail.
The lawyer said the case against Gill was registered under 14 sections of the Pakistan Penal Code on the basis of a “speech”, and a plea for the disposal of the case was pending in the court.
“The entire case revolves around a speech,” he said.
Safdar contended that the case was based on “mala fide” and politically motivated, adding that the investigation had already been completed and no more articles needed to be confiscated from Gill.
He reminded the court that Gill had served as a special assistant to the prime minister during the PTI’s tenure and was later appointed as party chairperson Imran Khan’s chief of staff.
“He has been very critical of the [incumbent] government,” the lawyer said, at which Justice Minallah told him not to discuss political matters.
“Present your arguments only on legal points,” the IHC CJ directed him.
Following that, Safdar read out the contents of the first information report (FIR) registered against Gill and said police proceedings were very important in the matter.
Justice Minallah then asked him whether Gill had actually made the statements quoted in the FIR.
“How will you justify such comments coming from a party representative? Why do political parties drag the [armed] forces into politics?” the IHC CJ questioned.
Gill’s lawyer responded by saying that statements from the complainant of the case had been a bigger cause of anarchy. “[Gill’s] speech did not cause as much anarchy as the complainant made it out to be.”
He alleged that some parts from Gill’s remarks had been removed and only some parts were put together to make a case.
Reading out Gill’s remarks, he pointed out that the PTI leader had named the senior leaders of the PML-N. But “on the basis of mala fide and as part of a plan, these parts were removed”, the lawyer alleged.
The lawyer contended that Gill’s remarks had only pertained to the “strategic media cell”.
At that, the IHC CJ commented: “This conversation shows to what extent political parties have fuelled hatred.”
Continuing his arguments, Gill’s lawyer contended that no one had the authority to register a case on behalf of the armed forces.
“This case has been registered at the PML-N’s behest. If the armed forces had any reservations, they would have got a case registered themselves.”
Here, Justice Minallah asked the lawyer not to make such statements. “Shahbaz Gill’s remarks were appropriate. It is a separate matter that the armed forces aren’t so weak that such statements would bring their morale down.”
He asked whether the government’s permission had been sought before the registration of the FIR, to which Gill’s lawyer replied in the negative.
Safdar said the matter of Gill’s remand was made controversial and the inclusion of sedition charges also made the case controversial. “A mockery has been made out of sedition cases,” he said, adding that sedition charges were included in cases pertaining to “very serious accusations”.
“It is easy to file a sedition case but very difficult to prove it,” he said, adding that Gill had been in detention for 36 days. “He has already spent enough time in jail for his deeds.”
Moreover, the trial court had concluded that “12 out of 13 sections included in the FIR did not apply to Shahbaz Gill”, the lawyer contended.
Returning to the contents of Gill’s remarks, he said the Supreme Court had issued verdicts on refusing to obey “illegal instructions” and even “Quaid-i-Azam Mohammad Ali Jinnah said in one of his speeches that illegal instructions shouldn’t be obeyed”.
Justice Minallah, however, said: “Shahbaz Gill’s statements were inappropriate and no justification could be given for them.
“Shahbaz Gill’s statements were also defamatory. People’s reputations should not be maligned.”
He asked the lawyer to explain how the charges in the FIR against Gill were incorrect.
“Wasn’t the representative of a political party aware that the armed forces have taken an oath of not meddling in politics? Shahbaz Gill’s statements were irresponsible, inappropriate and defamatory,” the IHC CJ said.

Prosecutor’s arguments​

While presenting his arguments, Special Prosecutor Raja Rizwan Abbasi said, “It is not written anywhere that armed forces will get the case registered themselves.”
He added that according to the law, inciting mutiny was abetting the crime. And Gill made the remarks on television, which had a large audience, the prosecutor said.
“He deliberately made such remarks on television. He deliberately tried to provoke [them].”
At that, Justice Minallah asked him not to give arguments on mutiny.
He added that Gill could only be charged with inciting mutiny if the involvement of another officer or personnel was proved.
“Has any revelation about Shahbaz Gill contacting a soldier been made during the probe? Was any contact made after which Shahbaz Gill tried to incite mutiny? Do you believe that such an irresponsible statement can affect the armed forces?” he asked.
The prosecutor told the court that no proof of Gill contacting a soldier had been found.
“People label others traitor on a whim,” Justice Minallah remarked.
He further noted that the trial court had removed all of the prosecution’s charges from the FIR, barring one. The judge added that the trial court was not satisfied and that was why the sections were removed.
“Did you ever challenge that order of the trial court?” he asked, to which the prosecutor replied there was no need to challenge the order.
However, Justice Minallah said if an “order goes against you, there is a need to challenge it”.
Continuing his arguments, the prosecutor told the court that a forensic report of Gill’s satellite phone was awaited and his mobile phone was in his driver’s custody, which was yet to be recovered. The prosecutor claimed that the satellite phone had “dangerous content”.
He also complained that Gill was not cooperating in the investigation.
The prosecutor also cited Section 131 of the Pakistan Penal Code, which he said mentioned the punishment for giving statements against the armed forces.
“The section that you are citing says that punishment should be given for statements against an officer,” the IHC CJ corrected him.
At that, the prosecutor argued that Gill’s remarks were about “all of the officers of the armed forces”.
He further contended that Gill had not denied making the statements mentioned in the FIR and accused the PTI leader of trying to “divide the Pakistan Army”.
At one point, Justice Minallah also observed that if social media content was taken under consideration, “half of Pakistan’s population would end up in jail”.
The prosecutor, however, argued that unless people were sent to jail, such acts would not end.
But Justice Minallah said: “Putting people in jail will not be of any use unless efforts are made for betterment.”
He asked the prosecutor why Gill’s bail plea should be dismissed.
“This court has had a consistent stance on bail. After final acquittal, the time spent under arrest cannot be compensated for,” the IHC CJ observed.
The prosecutor then contended that based on his track record, Gill could make remarks similar to those on this case in the future as well.
“If he does this again, a plea can be filed in the trial court,” Justice Minallah said and granted the PTI leader bail against Rs500,000 surety bonds.

The controversy​

On August 9, the same day when Gill was arrested, the Pakistan Electronic Media Regulatory Authority (Pemra) had issued a show-cause notice to ARY News for airing comments from Gill, that it said were “highly hateful and seditious” remarks tantamount to “incite armed forces towards revolt”.
The notice stated that Gill was invited via a telephonic call for his comments and during his talk with the channel, Gill had alleged that the government was trying to provoke the lower and middle tier of the army against the PTI, saying the families of such “rank and file” support Imran Khan and his party “which is fuelling rage within the government”.
He had also alleged that the “strategic media cell” of the ruling PML-N was spreading false information and fake news to create divisions between PTI chief Imran Khan and the armed forces.
Gill had said the government leaders, including Javed Latif, Defence Minister Khawaja Asif and former National Assembly speaker Ayaz Sadiq, had lambasted the army in the past “and they were at the government positions now”.
“The statement made by the guest on ARY News is a violation of Article 19 of the Constitution as well as Pemra laws. Airing of such content on your news channel shows either weak editorial control on the content or the licensee is intentionally indulged in providing its platform to such individuals who intend to spread malice and hatred against state institutions for their vested interests,” the watchdog stated.
“Dr Gill tried to malign the federal government, claiming the government functionaries are spearheading a campaign through social media cell for propagating anti-army narrative,” the authority said.
Meanwhile, a case was registered against Gill on charges of sedition and inciting mutiny in the army.
The first information report was registered under Sections 34 (common intention), 109 (abetment), 120 (concealing design to commit offence punishable with imprisonment), 121 (waging war against state), 124-A (sedition), 131 (abetting mutiny, or attempt to seduce a soldier, sailor or airman from his duty), 153 (provoking to cause riot), 505 (statement conducing to public mischief) and 506 (punishment for criminal intimidation) of the Pakistan Penal Code.

---

More to follow

 

[VCheng]

He added that Gill could only be charged with inciting mutiny if the involvement of another officer or personnel was proved.

Eh? Incitement does not need a convert to follow through, by definition.

 

[HAIDER]

 

[SIPRA]

Kangaroo Courts. Justice delayed is justice denied.

 

[White privilege]

Just apologize, get this over with. The longer PTI tries to fight this, the deeper hole they dig for themselves.

 

[AZADPAKISTAN2009]

Should have thrown out the case and set the man free

 

[ghazi52]

,..,.

Gill gets bail in sedition case​

The Newspaper
September 16, 2022

• SC to hear PTI leader’s plea today on need for physical custody to complete investigation
• Apex court moved for early hearing of PTI appeal challenging high court’s rejection of plea seeking de-notification of 123 MNAs


ISLAMABAD: The Islamabad High Court (IHC) on Thursday finally granted post-arrest bail to PTI leader Dr Shahbaz Gill, and ordered his release against surety bonds of Rs0.5 million.

The PTI chairman’s chief of staff has been nominated as an accused in the first information report (FIR) registered against him for inciting mutiny within the armed forces during an interview to a TV channel.

Meanwhile, the Supreme Court will consider on Friday (today) Gill’s plea highlighting if the physical custody of an accused was necessary to complete investigations in criminal cases.

In the IHC, Gill’s counsel Barrister Salman Safdar mainly argued that no offence was made out against his client and that the registration of a criminal case was politically motivated and based on mala fide.

Special Prosecutor Raja Rizwan Abbasi argued that Gill’s speech aired by ARY News was sufficient to attract the offences mentioned in the FIR; he had abetted and attempted to incite members of the armed forces to disobey lawful orders of their superiors, and thus committed mutiny.

In response to a court query, the special prosecutor conceded that during the investigation, no incriminating material could be collected to indicate that before or after making the statements, Gill had contacted any officer or other members of the armed forces with the intent to abet or attempt to cause incitement.

He stated that Section 131 of the PPC explicitly provides an offence is committed when a person abets the committing of mutiny by an officer, soldier, sailor or airman in the army, navy or air force or attempts to seduce any such officer from his allegiance or duty. The prosecutor also submitted the transcript of Gill’s statement before the court.

IHC Chief Justice Athar Minallah noted: “Such reckless statements were not expected from a person who claims to be an academician and is held out as a spokesman of a political party.”

The chief justice pointed out that the trial court was satisfied that except the offence described under Section 131, the other offences mentioned in the FIR were, prima facie, not attracted. He also observed the prosecution had not brought on record any material to show that a complaint was received from or on behalf of the armed forces. He added the discipline of the armed forces was not frail or weak to be affected or influenced by “reckless and irresponsible statements” made by those who claimed to be political leaders.

Despite the reckless statements made by Gill, a case for further inquiry was made because a probe was required into whether the offences mentioned in the FIR would be attracted solely on the basis of a speech.

“The investigation has been concluded and Shahbaz Gill is no more required to be incarcerated,” said the court order, adding that in such an eventuality his incarceration would not only be futile, but rather amount to punishing him before the conclusion of the trial. Moreover, nothing could be brought on record to persuade the court that if released on bail, Gill would repeat the offence, tamper with evidence, influence the witnesses or abscond.

Custody in criminal cases

Meanwhile, a three-judge Supreme Court bench, consisting of Justice Ijazul Ahsan, Justice Sayyed Mazahar Ali Akbar Naqvi and Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhel, will take up a petition moved by senior counsel Barrister Salman Safdar on behalf of Dr Shahbaz Gill, challenging the Aug 18 IHC order that referred the issue of remand to the Islamabad additional sessions judge who had extended his physical custody.

The petition also questioned if the approval of the federal government, as defined by the apex court in the 2016 Mustafa Impex case, was a mandatory precondition prior to registration of a criminal case on charges of mutiny and sedition, and whether the absence of permission by the federal cabinet would render the arrest, detention and remand an exercise in nullity, causing grave miscarriage of justice.

It also questioned whether the 14-day remand and physical custody of an accused was justified in the present case of mutiny and sedition when the allegations primarily revolved around a speech.

And whether the alleged torture and physical abuse during police custody and interrogation could be justified under the Constitution as well as the CrPC along with the Police Rules, the petition questioned, also asking if the IHC order of appointing the police chief to investigate the allegations of torture and physical abuse by the police operating under his command could ensure digging out the truth.

Challenge to IHC’s plea rejection

Separately, the PTI moved an application for early hearing of its challenge to the Sept 6 IHC rejection of a similar plea seeking a direction to the Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP) to de-notify its 123 MNAs.

Moved through senior counsel Faisal Fareed, the petition also requested the apex court to fix the matter on Sept 16 since the ECP had announced by-elections on piecemeal basis when the commission was bound to hold elections on all the vacant seats within 60 days. It also pleaded that the piecemeal acceptance of resignations of PTI lawmakers and elections on the few seats was based on “colourful exercise of power”.

Published in Dawn, September 16th, 2022

 

[Enigma SIG]

Gill ko Rana me ghus k phat jana chaiye.

 

[HAIDER]

Gill ko Rana me ghus k phat jana chaiye.

He went to SC and now .....

SC summons investigators on Shahbaz Gill’s plea against physical custody​

Haseeb Bhatti Published September 16, 2022 Updated about 3 hours ago




2

Justice Sayyed Mazahar Ali Akbar Naqvi (L), Justice Ijazul Ahsan (M) and Justice Jamal Mandokhail (R) — DawnNewsTV
LISTEN TO ARTICLE1x1.2x1.5x
The Supreme Court (SC) on Friday issued notices to federal investigators and summoned them in a personal capacity on a petition filed by PTI leader Shahbaz Gill seeking to determine if physical custody was necessary to complete criminal cases.
The order was issued by a three-member bench comprising Justice Ijazul Ahsan, Justice Sayyed Mazahar Ali Akbar Naqvi and Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhel, after it took the petition moved by senior counsel Barrister Salman Safdar on Gill’s behalf.
PTI chairman Imran Khan’s chief of staff has been nominated as an accused in the first information report (FIR) registered against him for allegedly inciting mutiny within the armed forces during an interview with a TV channel.
Gill was taken into custody under Sections 34 (common intention), 109 (abetment), 120 (concealing design to commit offence punishable with imprisonment), 121 (waging war against state), 124-A (sedition), 131 (abetting mutiny, or attempt to seduce a soldier, sailor or airman from his duty), 153 (provoking to cause riot), 505 (statement conducing to public mischief) and 506 (punishment for criminal intimidation) of the Pakistan Penal Code (PPC).
A day after his arrest, an Islamabad district and sessions court had granted police a two-day physical remand of the PTI leader. Subsequently, the police had multiple times sought an extension in the remand from the Islamabad High Court (IHC) but the requests were turned down.
On August 16, the IHC had referred the matter back to the trial court and later that day, a judicial magistrate had approved Gill’s two-day physical remand in police custody.
However, it was only two hours after the court’s ruling that Islamabad police were able to take Gill’s custody.
During the course of the investigation, PTI leaders, including Imran, alleged that Gill had been subjected to torture and abuse in police custody and contended the demand for Gill’s physical remand based on these claims.
Gill also accused police of physically and mentally torturing him and orchestrating a “fake medical checkup” when his “body was full of bruises”. He further alleged that he was stripped and thrown into a room where he was beaten and kicked for three nights after his arrest on August 9.
In the most recent development, the IHC on Thursday finally granted post-arrest bail to the PTI leader and ordered his release against surety bonds of Rs500,000.

The hearing​

In the beginning of the hearing today, Gill’s lawyer Salman Safdar claimed that the trial court “exceeded its authority” in the PTI leader’s case. “There is no example of the torture that was inflicted on Shahbaz Gill,” he said.
Here, Justice Naqvi inquired about Gill’s statements on which the case was lodged against him. “He gave a speech on the basis of which 13 provisions were booked [against him],” Safdar replied.
“What was it? On what basis was the case built,” Justice Naqvi asked the lawyer.
In his response, the lawyer said that the trial court “exceeded its authority”.
The judge asked again on what basis physical remand was given.
The lawyer then asked the judge to explain why the PTI leader was sent into physical custody.
However, his question irked the court. “What are you talking about? Is this the way you speak to a judge,” Justice Naqvi said.
Safdar immediately retracted his words and apologised to the court.
“Gill did not make a speech, he gave an interview,” Justice Naqvi went on, saying that the lawyer did not prepare for the case. “You don’t even know the purpose and process of giving a physical remand.
“The [trial court] judge has clearly written in the order that there were torture marks on Gill’s body,” Justice Naqvi said. “Will the judge also appear as a witness in the case?”
He said that the magistrate was the “guarantor of the prisoner’s rights”. “Don’t you know that?” the judge said and asked Safdar if the Criminal Code applied to the apex court.
The lawyer replied in the affirmative. “Waqeel sahab, Criminal Code does not apply to the Supreme Court,” Justice Naqvi contended.
Meanwhile, Justice Ahsan asked about the contents of Gill’s interview.
Justice Naqvi also inquired if seeking the remand of an accused in custody was important. “In this case, what was to be recovered from the accused? Did the police want to recover the tongue with which Gill has spoken?”
The judge observed that whatever was recovered for him had nothing to do with the case.
At one point, Justice Naqvi observed that the PTI leader would have to approach relevant forums against custodial torture and asked if the petitioner had reached out to any such forum.
He also inquired if someone had stopped Gill from filing an application in a relevant forum.
Here, Justice Mandokhel asked the lawyer if any such reports of torture surfaced during the tenure of PTI.
Safdar replied that incidents of custodial torture rarely came to light, claiming that Gill’s remand was the most “controversial” in the country’s history.
Subsequently, the court adjourned the hearing for an indefinite period of time, while issuing notices to federal investigation officers.

Gill’s petition​

The petition filed in the apex court questioned if the approval of the federal government, as defined by the apex court in the 2016 Mustafa Impex case, was a mandatory precondition prior to registration of a criminal case on charges of mutiny and sedition, and whether the absence of permission by the federal cabinet would render the arrest, detention and remand an exercise in nullity, causing grave miscarriage of justice.
It also questioned whether the 14-day remand and physical custody of an accused was justified in the present case of mutiny and sedition when the allegations primarily revolved around a speech.
And whether the alleged torture and physical abuse during police custody and interrogation could be justified under the Constitution as well as the CrPC along with the Police Rules, the petition questioned, also asking if the IHC order of appointing the police chief to investigate the allegations of torture and physical abuse by the police operating under his command could ensure digging out the truth.

 

[ghazi52]

,.,..

Armed forces 'not so weak' to be affected by Gill's statement, says IHC​

Court issues written order in Gill's bail plea; observes complaint not filed by armed forces, or their representative

Saqib Bashir
September 16, 2022

---

ISLAMABAD: Terming Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) leader Shahbaz Gill’s statement ‘irresponsible’, the Islamabad High Court (IHC) observed on Friday that the armed forces were not so weak as to be affected by such statements.

In a six-page detailed order, issued a day after approving the PTI leader's bail plea and ordering to release him from prison, the IHC observed that the armed forces had not filed a complaint against the PTI, nor was it filed by a representative on their behalf..

The IHC added that the prosecution also did not succeed in presenting sufficient evidence to support the sedition charges against him.

IHC Chief justice (CJ) Athar Minallah in the order stated that Gill was arrested on August 9 under multiple charges including sedition after he gave a controversial statement on a private TV channel allegedly inciting mutiny within the armed forces and later on August 30 an additional session judge rejected Gill’s request for bail.

“No evidence could be adduced that Shahbaz Gill approached a single officer of the armed forces to become party to the crime,” CJ Minallah observed.

“The investigation has been completed and [therefore] he cannot be detained further,” the judge added.

The PTI leader’s counsel, Salman Safdar, had also argued that the trial court was also satisfied that no offense was committed apart from Section 131 of the Pakistan Penal Code, claiming “malicious intent” was behind the case and that the charges were politically motivated.

On the other hand, the prosecutor argued that the speech was sufficient to prove the sedition charge since Gill had asked the members of the armed forces to disobey the orders of the officers.

However, the court held that the prosecution failed to present sufficient evidence to prove Gill had been involved in inciting rebellion within the armed forces and granted him bail against a surety bond of Rs500,000. The IHC also stated that the trial court can compel Gill to ensure court attendance at every hearing.

Meanwhile, the legal team of the PTI leader had approached the Supreme Court against alleged "custodial torture" and challenged an earlier IHC order under Article 185(3) of the Constitution.

Chief Justice of Pakistan Umar Ata Bandial had on Tuesday constituted a three-member special bench to hear Gill’s petition regarding alleged custodial torture.

The bench will be led by Justice Ijazul Ahsan and includes Justice Sayyed Mazahar Ali Akbar Naqvi and Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhail.