The Lahore High Court on Saturday granted bail to journalist Imran Riaz Khan in a plea seeking to quash 18 cases filed against him or to consolidate all of them into a single First Information Report (FIR).
Justice Ali Bakr Najafi, appearing for Imran Riaz, considered the petition filed by advocates Shajeeb Masood, Mian Ali Ashfaq, Rana Abdul Maruf Khan and Mian Izhar Ahmed.
Petition, a copy of which is available don.comRequested the court to “suspend the conduct of all FIRs till the final decision of the matter and direct the respondents to produce the petitioner before this Hon’ble Court and continue immediately till the final disposal of the petition.”
The Punjab government and the Inspector General of Police (IGP) were named as respondents in the petition.
Imran, facing sedition charges in several cases, was initially taken into custody Near Islamabad on Tuesday night by Attock Police. He was later relieved by a local court in the early hours of Thursday, only to be immediately Arrested By a team of Chakwal police outside the courtroom.
He was then transferred to Lahore, before which his judicial custody was allowed by a local court in Chakwal district.
It was learned on Friday that the Lahore Police handed over Crime investigation agency to journalist in case of rebellion and criticism of state institutions.
the hearing
At the beginning of the hearing at the LHC today, Imran Riaz’s lawyer thanked the court for hearing the petition on a public holiday.
To this Justice Najafi remarked: “It is our duty. We have to protect the Constitution.”
The lawyer then told the LHC that his client had approached a court the very next day after the FIR was lodged against him. “But he was arrested at the Islamabad toll plaza,” he claimed, adding that the police had concealed the record of the case in which Imran Riaz was detained from the LHC in another petition.
Police, lawyer allege, ‘Imran wanted to arrest Riyaz and so’ [they] Didn’t inform the court about those FIRs.”
The lawyer claimed that the present government is suppressing the voice of the journalists’ protest. PTI party leaders have done on several occasions praised the journalist By name.
Ashfaq argued that multiple cases could not be registered on the same charge and the journalist’s remarks were based on good intentions. “Anything said with good intentions is not a crime,” he said.
The lawyer said that Imran Riaz had said nothing against the army and that the filing of a case against him was “nothing but retaliation”.
The lawyer was asked about the punishment under section 505 (statement to public mischief) of the Pakistan Penal Code, to which he replied that it is seven years.
“We are all bound by the Constitution and the law,” Justice Najafi remarked in response.
When Ashfaq reiterated that the journalist had not said anything against any army representative, he was asked to go through the contents of the FIR lodged with Gujranwala.
“The content of 95 to 98 per cent of all cases is exactly the same,” the lawyer said, adding that the Constitution allowed freedom of expression and once again stated that multiple cases cannot be filed on the same charge.
“Whoever defames his army or spreads anarchy in the country” [committing] Crime. Ashfaq argued that if a person brings true news in good faith, it is not a crime.
He once again stated that his client had said nothing against the army and that no evidence existed for any of the cases registered.
The counsel argued that the police did not even have the authority to register such an FIR as it came under the jurisdiction of the Federal Investigation Agency.
“Imran Riaz never made the statement for which he is being blamed in the FIR.”
He further argued that the FIR claimed that people who liked the alleged statement of the journalist were also involved in the crime, adding that two million people had liked his statement.
Justice Najafi remarked at this point that the journalist’s responsibility was due to his large following.
After this the hearing was adjourned for half an hour and the Advocate General of Punjab was summoned.
When the hearing resumed, Punjab’s Advocate General Shehzad Showkat said he had seen the case file and needed a detailed response.
He said that he has no objection to Imran Riyaz being granted bail if the journalist gives a guarantee to appear before the magistrate on the first day after Eid.
Justice Najafi ordered the journalist to be produced in the courtroom and gave an undertaking that he would not make any controversial speech till he appeared before the magistrate.
Thereafter, Imran Riaz was produced in court where Justice Najafi told the journalist that his lawyer had assured that he would not make any statement which could “further complicate the matter”.
Imran Riaz assured the court that he would not make any controversial statement. Therefore, the judge accepted the request of the journalist and granted him bail, adjourning the next hearing till July 19.
The judge also told the journalist not to make the court “controversial”, adding that there was “nothing strange” about a court being in session on Saturday.
petition
The petition states that Imran Riaz was “working hard to provide and distribute information on the basis of quality of truth and by doing so he was exposing the illegalities and wrongdoings of all without prejudice”.hence), it is called (hence)” ruler or institution.
He had “always given his opinion on the basis of his completely independent journalism”.[ic] View all types of topics […] The petition said that in the larger interest of the people of Pakistan and “thousands of people and stories were exposed without fear”.
It said the current government was taking “vengeance” from several journalists, including Imran Riaz.
The petition states that Imran believes that “more fake cases” were registered against him in the form of FIRs or complaints that were “directed by the present government and on behalf of various unknown persons and with the connivance of the defendants”. and in collusion”. went away.
It mentioned that Imran had sent a letter to the Punjab IGP on June 30, requesting details regarding any pending complaint/FIR against him so that he could approach the concerned forum for investigation and To seek bail before arrest.
But due to the “non-cooperation shown by the Punjab IGP”, the petition said, Imran filed a writ petition before the LHC, which directed the Punjab police chief to submit the record of cases and complaints against the journalist by July 1. . ,
It has been said in the petition that then the Punjab government had submitted a report in this matter. However, it added, while the report shows records of 17 FIRs registered against Imran, some complaints and FIRs “deliberately and willfully concealed” for the sole purpose of arresting the journalist “at present to please the public”. went. do by any means” [the] On the instructions of the Government on whose instructions this fake FIR was registered against the petitioner by the respondent no.
The petition states that Imran then decided to approach the Islamabad High Court for protective/temporary bail, but was arrested by the Attock police at 10:30 pm on July 5 at the Islamabad toll plaza.
The plea further said that the case in which Imran was arrested was concealed from the LHC, terming it an “malicious” act.
Imran was then produced before the Judicial Magistrate at Attock, the petition said, adding that the journalist was then granted relief.
The petition further stated that the FIR against Imran was similar in nature, “so much”. [that] Most of the FIRs have synonyms.” In this regard, it was argued in the petition that no other FIR can be registered in respect of the same incident.
“Furthermore, the charges and offenses framed in the FIR are prohibited by section 196 of CrPC (Code of Criminal Procedure) and other offenses are non-cognizable in nature for which any prescribed procedure given under law has not been followed. . ”, read the petition.
It was contended that the FIRs were lodged “through the implicated persons”, while they were required to be lodged “through the authorized representatives/officials authorized on behalf of the Federal or Provincial Governments – that too if ordered – or the powers of the Federal or Provincial Government under it, which is wholly missing in the above FIR.
The plea said the offenses relating to the Electronic Crime Prevention Act, 2016 in the FIR could not be “entertained or judged” by the police as the Federal Investigation Agency was the designated authority for the purpose.
Therefore, the FIRs are liable to be quashed, the petition said.
Further, the petition states that Imran is “being dragged from one police station to another and then to another police station and is also facing physical remand/judicial remand proceedings”.
It has been said in the petition that if this dispute continues, then the life of the petitioner is going to be ruined while facing the proceedings of multiple FIRs one after the other.
The plea further states that the alleged offenses against Imran “do not come from the apparent circumstances of the incident in the above FIR and the allegations are of vague nature”.
In fact, it added, “Respondent No. 1, while acting maliciously (hence) tried to drag the petitioner unnecessarily and without any reasonable or sufficient ground to include him in the said FIR.”
The petition states that there is no “derogatory material” available on record which could create any nexus of the petitioner with the alleged offences.
“Furthermore, no such words spoken or uttered by the petitioner are referred to in the contents of the FIR, and the FIR is silent to the extent that if any such material pertains to complaints filed by private persons who have is of [of] such crimes.”
The petition seeks to quash all “18 FIRs or proceedings thereof as not attracting any offense due to lack of jurisdiction as well as fulfillment of jurisdiction on account of the facts and circumstances stated in the particulars of the said FIR . Maybe. [of] Procedural requirements mentioned in sections 196 and 155 of CrPC”.
Otherwise, the petition states: “As an alternative, consolidate all FIRs and in the larger interest of fair, transparent and equitable justice allow the petitioner to be investigated, or prosecuted, or prosecuted under only one FIR.” ” ,
more to follow