Invoking jurisdiction of the Islamabad High Court on Friday for post-arrest bail facility in sedition case, Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf leader Shahbaz Gill urged the court to get him release till final adjudication of the case against him.
It has been reported that the IHC Chief Justice Athar Minallah will take up the matter on Monday (September 5).
Gill has been arrested on August 9 after he made controversial remarks allegedly about the army during an ARY News bulletin and has been detained since, amid claims of him being subjected to torture and sexual abuse during custody.
Islamabad Police have denied these allegations and sought extensions in his remand multiple times, maintaining that it was required to complete the case’s investigation. Earlier this week, an Islamabad district and sessions court had dismissed the PTI leader’s plea seeking post-arrest bail. Subsequently, he has filed a similar bail petition with the IHC.
Counsel for the accused person Gill submitted in the bail application that the case registered against Gill was “politically motivated” with “ulterior motives and malafide intentions”. “For charges under mutiny and sedition, approval and sanction of the federal government is a pre-requisite,” , the counsel submitted claiming that no such approval was granted in this case.
“Without permission and sanction, the very registration of a first information report, followed by arrest, detention and remand under Section 167 CrPC, is a nullity in the eyes of the law.” The plea stated that the FIR against Gill had been registered after the passage of one day, which it claimed was used to “cook up a story by manipulating and twisting the words of his statement”.
It further argued that the PTI leader was a senior party member and ever since the incumbent government came to power, it had been trying to lodge a case against him and put him behind bars.
“These repeated attempts made to incarcerate him clearly and obviously point towards political victimisation of the petitioner. It is, therefore, a politically motivated case in which offences have recklessly been applied,” the petitioner said.