Shahbaz Gill moves IHC against physical remand

ISLAMABAD (INN) – Former SAPM and Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) leader Shahbaz Gill has challenged the session court’s ruling regarding two-day physical remand in sedition case in the Islamabad High Court (IHC).

Gill challenged Additional Sessions Judge Zeba Chaudhary’s decision through his lawyers. Additional Sessions Judge, IG and SSP Islamabad among others have been made parties in the petition.

Earlier today, the session court of Islamabad had approved PTI chairman Imran Khan’s chief of staff’s two-day physical remand in sedition case.

Previously, the Additional Sessions Judge Zeba Chaudhry held hearing on the review appeal against the rejection of PTI leader’s physical remand, in which the prosecutor and Shahbaz Gill’s lawyer completed their arguments.

The court has sent Shahbaz Gill on two-day physical remand in the verdict.

On August 9, Gill was arrested by Islamabad Police outside Banigala Chowk on charges of “making statements against state institutions and inciting the people to rebellion.”

On Monday, the Islamabad court issued notices to Gill in the government’s petition seeking his physical remand.

A single-member bench of Acting Chief Justice Aamer Farooq on Monday heard the federal government’s petition filed through Advocate General Islamabad Jahangir Jadoon seeking physical custody of the PTI leader to collect additional evidence in the case and acquire the names of those behind the alleged offence.

In the petition, the prosecution cited Gill, the sessions judge, Islamabad and the judicial magistrate as respondents. The government adopted the stance in the petition that the investigation was incomplete and Judicial Magistrate Umar Shabbir granted judicial remand and rejected an extension of Gill’s physical remand which has resulted in the prosecution case being subjected to “serious prejudice”.

It requested physical custody of the accused, arguing that the “police have yet to recover the mobile phone of the accused containing necessary information/date to corroborate the contents of FIR as a piece of evidence.”

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

scroll to top