Senior PTI leader Fawad Chaudhry on Wednesday demanded a judicial inquiry into alleged torture on Shahbaz Gill in police custody — a demand he made soon after an Islamabad court reserved a decision on a plea seeking Gill’s physical remand in a sedition case, which will be announced this afternoon.
The development comes less than a week after a district and sessions court rejected a police request to extend Gill’s two-day physical remand and an additional district and sessions judge dismissed a plea requesting a review of the district court’s order.
A plea challenging these orders was filed by Islamabad Advocate General Jahangir Khan Jadoon in the Islamabad High Court on Saturday last week.
The authorities maintained in the plea that the physical remand of Gill — who is currently in judicial custody on charges of sedition and inciting mutiny in the armed forces following his controversial remarks on ARY News — is important for the completion of the case’s investigation.
The IHC on Tuesday referred a plea seeking Gill’s physical remand to the sessions court for hearing.
The district and sessions court in Islamabad took up the plea for Gill’s remand as the prosecution and defence lawyer furnished arguments.
Prosecutor Raja Rizwan Abbasi told the court that the detained party leader was “repeatedly telling lies” and that a polygraph test had to be conducted.
He said the investigators also needed the suspect’s mobile phone records which could potentially lead to more evidence.
“We are yet to investigate the person who allegedly approved the script of the suspect (Gill), which [led him to utter seditious remarks].”
The prosecutor also questioned how a judicial magistrate, who refused Gill’s physical remand, accepted the suspect’s statement as “conclusive”.
He also rejected the claim by the PTI, saying that “a justification of suspension of mobile network signals due to Ashura is also incorrect”.
Abbasi urged the court to allow the physical remand of Gill to process the investigation.
Defending his client, Gill’s lawyer Salman Safdar sought copies of the questions that the PTI leader faced during interrogation.
“The public’s response to determine whether Gill’s remarks were seditious should have been awaited before a case was filed against him,” the lawyer argued.
He criticised the prosecution argument for what he said was an emphasis on Gill’s remarks being made at someone’s behest.
“Some of the things could be wrong but they do not fall under sedition, conspiracy or crime,” Gill’s lawyer contended.
He insisted that a person who had been sent on judicial remand could not be sent back on physical remand again.
