The written ruling, which the Islamabad High Court delivered on Friday in response to Shahbaz Gill’s bail petition, stated that the PTI leader’s remarks were “certainly reckless” and “not expected” of the party spokesman.
The PTI leader was granted post-arrest bail on Thursday by IHC Chief Justice Athar Minallah, who also mandated that he be released on an Rs500,000 surety bond.
For allegedly encouraging rebellion within the military during an interview with a TV channel, Gill has been charged with sedition.
According to the IHC judgment announced today, no evidence could be gathered throughout the investigation to show that the petitioner had contacted any officer or other Armed Forces members before or after making the statements with the intention to aid or attempt to create incitement.
The PTI leader’s words “were undoubtedly dangerous and demonstrated a lack of grasp of the framework of the Constitution,” the order stated.
Such reckless remarks were not anticipated from a person who holds themselves out as an academician and a political party spokesperson, read
However, the IHC stated that the trial court was convinced that all other offenses named in the FIR were initially “not attracted,” except the one covered by section 131 of the Pakistan Penal Code (PPC).
The prosecution, it said, has also not submitted any evidence to the court to demonstrate that a complaint was received from or on behalf of the armed forces.
According to the statement, “the discipline of the Armed Forces is indeed not frail nor weak to be affected or influenced by reckless and irresponsible words made by people who profess to be political leaders.”
However, the IHC stated that the trial court was convinced that all other offences named in the FIR were initially “not attracted,” except the one covered by section 131 of the Pakistan Penal Code (PPC).
The prosecution, it said, has also not submitted any evidence to the court to demonstrate that a complaint was received from or on behalf of the armed forces.
According to the statement, “the discipline of the Armed Forces is indeed not frail nor weak to be affected or influenced by reckless and irresponsible words made by people who profess to be political leaders.”
