![](https://nextpakistan.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/2617193-peshawarhighcourt-1710315077-515-640x4801710332106-0.jpg)
- April 8, 2024
- Kainat Shakeel
- 0
PESHAWAR: The Peshawar High Court has denied the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa government’s requests to revoke the bail that was granted to three Pakistan Tehreek-i-Insaf employees about the violent protests that took place in two cantonments in Dir Lower on May 9. A lone member of Justice Mohammad Naeem Anwar’s bench denied two requests from the interim provincial government to revoke the bail that had been given to the three accused. In one of the petitions, the government asked that the bail an anti-terrorism court granted to Amir Afzal and Usman Khan on November 8, 2023, be revoked. In this instance, they were accused of attacking and vandalizing Chakdara Cantonment alongside hundreds of other PTI employees.
In the second appeal, the government asked for the recall of Ikhlaq Ahmad’s bail, which an ATC had granted him on November 1, 2023, following a violent demonstration on May 9 in Balambat Cantonment in Dir Lower. In addition to multiple other offenses, the trio of suspects faces charges of sedition. Ikhlaq’s plea was rejected because Assistant Advocate General Naeem Khan did not pursue it. He brought up the fact that the high court had previously received 11 motions for bail cancellation, all of which had been denied on December 4, 2023.
He declared that he would not pursue the matter because he had reviewed the ruling and case file. The bench noted that in the other case, the names of the two respondents were ostensibly not included in the FIR and were only added to the case at a later date. During the debates, the bench noted that neither their autonomous function nor any incriminating evidence had been presented that may have led to the accused’s freedom being restricted.
“The grounds for canceling the respondents’ bail, in this case, are not available before this court, nor is it appropriate for a learned trial court to judge whether an FIR under certain offenses was registered under the relevant provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1908, without a written complaint on behalf of the competent authority.” The bench further noted that an additional advocate general representing the government had openly stated that the instant petition would not benefit anyone because the high court had already ruled on December 4, 2023, regarding the cancellation of the bail of the co-accused individuals of the current respondents.
The complainant in this instance was SHO Mujeebullah Khan, and the FIR was filed at the Chakdara police station. The complainant had claimed that PTI organized a protest march following Imran Khan, the party’s chairman, being taken into custody. He asserted that there were between 3,500 and 4,000 demonstrators at the demonstration. He claimed the demonstrators set fire to multiple cars and structures, assaulted the employees stationed at the Chakdara Cantonment entrance, stormed into the munitions store, and stole numerous weapons and ammunition in significant quantities.
The ATC noted that, in granting bail to the two respondents, a preliminary review of the record on file indicated that none of the accused had been assigned a specific role; therefore, it became doubtful that any of them had been involved in the incident. The acting government had argued that the ATC’s directives should be overturned because they violated the law, the facts, and the available information.