IHC gives Bail to Gill an alleged inflammatory comment regarding the army during a local tv channel’s broadcast led to the arrest of a former aide to the deposed premier Imran Khan on August 9.
IHC Bail to Gill:
He has been jailed ever since, and lower courts have rejected his bail requests.
Salman Safdar, the lawyer for the PTI leader, contended that the case was registered with bad intentions and was highly political at the hearing that was earlier held, which was presided over by IHC Chief Justice Athar Minallah.
The attorney continued and elaborated that inquiry has been concluded; the prosecution’s story was predicated on a single statement.
If Gill had said what was recorded in the first inquiry report (FIR), CJ Minallah questioned if it was acceptable to “bring the military forces into politics” and if so, whether or not it was justifiable. The court observed that it was not just an ordinary statement.
The PTI politician had not said a single word against the military forces, according to Gill’s attorney, who also claimed that various portions of his address were omitted from context due to ulterior intentions.”
Additionally, the attorney read a copy of Gill’s address and claimed that the petitioner, who wasn’t even the party harmed, had inflated Gill’s claims.
He asserted that no one else has the authority to bring a claim on account of the military.
CJ Minallah commented that under no way could Gill’s reckless words be justified and added that the military forces are not sufficiently feeble that one’s reckless comments would impact them.
The court questioned upon it that was the state’s consent obtained before the complaint was recorded.
Although special attorney Raja Rizwan Abbasi disagreed with lawyer Safdar and claimed the administration was contacted on the topic, Safdar claimed the state was not engaged.
When the prosecution was asked if the inquiry indicated if Gill had approached a soldier to incite mutiny, the judge indicated its skepticism.
Gill was the one who started it all, according to prosecutor Abbasi. He continued, that regardless of whether mutiny occurs, the stoking of wrath through speech is comparable to attempted mutiny.
Despite this, the judge decided that Gill could not be denied bail because “no conclusive proof” had been discovered against him so far.
The judge ordered Gill’s motion for release and ordered the payment of Rs. 5,000 bonds while CJ Minallah gave the state more time to compile evidence and complete its inquiry.
It is not stated elsewhere that the military forces will file the case themselves, Special Counsel Raja Rizwan Abbasi remarked during his presentation of the case.
He continued by saying that, in terms of the law, encouraging mutiny amounted to aiding the crime. Additionally, the prosecutor claimed that Gill made the comments in front of a sizable audience on television.
He purposefully said such things on television. He made a conscious effort to agitate them. Justice Minallah then requested him to refrain from making mutiny-related statements.
He continued by saying that Gill would only be accused of encouraging rebellion if the complicity of some other officer or member of the staff was established.
