ISLAMABAD -UNS: The Islamabad High Court (IHC) on Friday rejected two pleas of the Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) chairman in the cipher case.
These were a plea on his bail after arrest and quashing of cipher case. Chief Justice Aamer Farooq announced the decision reserved on Oct 16.
Advocate Latif Khosa represented the PTI chief in the quashing of the cipher case and Barrister Salman Safdar in bail after arrest case.
Special Prosecutor Shah Khawar and Raja Rizwan Abbasi represented the FIA.
The high court had earlier disposed of an appeal filed by the PTI chairman against his indictment by the trial court in the cipher case.
The court, however, observed that the PTI chief should be given the right to fair trial.
It may be recalled that a special court formed under the Official Secrets Act had rejected the PTI chief’s bail plea and the former prime minister moved the IHC against the decision.
THE JUDGEMENT
The 20-page verdict written by the chief justice, declared both petitions as “without merit” and were “accordingly dismissed”.
“It is clarified that any observations, made hereinabove, are tentative in nature and shall not prejudice learned trial court during the trial,” it added.
On the matter of the plea seeking dismissal of the case, it stated that the petitioner had the “efficacious and alternate remedy by way of moving an appropriate application” under section 249-A (power of magistrate to acquit accused at any stage) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
“Moreover, the petitioner is co-accused in the case and even if the arguments advanced for quashment of FIR on his behalf are accepted, FIR cannot be quashed in as much as there are other co-accused and there cannot be a partial quashing of FIR,” the verdict said.
Referring to a previous Supreme Court verdict, the IHC said it showed that “contents of cipher were such that they only called for demarche and not any further strict action, as there was no conspiracy of any kind”.
Addressing the arguments made in the pleas, the judgment said the former prime minister, “when addressed the public gathering, was not doing so pursuant to the performance of his duties as prime minister, rather it was a political engagement”.
Noting that the punishment for the offence committed under section 5(1)(a) (wrongful communication, etc of information) of the Official Secrets Act was “death or imprisonment up to fourteen years”, the chief justice said it attracted the prohibitory clause of section 497 (when bail may be taken in ease of non-bailable offence) of the CrPC and “there does not exist any ground for further inquiry”.
“The case law cited by the petitioner for grant of bail in the facts and circumstances is not relevant in as much as undoubtedly the evidence is all documentary but according to the prosecution, the copy of cipher is still in custody of the petitioner and […] where allegations are serious and prima facie link the accused with the commission of the offence, bail is to be denied in case of Official Secrets Act, 1923.”
