islamabad -


The Islamabad High Court (IHC) Monday turned down a petition challenging the notification of Islamabad Capital Territory Administration (ICTA) declaring Pervez Musharraf’s farmhouse as sub-jail.
IHC judge Justice Riaz Ahmad declared the action of Chief Commissioner Islamabad as legal and disposed of the petition moved by advocate Chaudhary Ashraf Gujjar. During the hearing, additional deputy attorney general contended that law permitted district administration to declare any residence as sub-jail keeping in view security concerns.
Therefore, he argued that the said notification of ICTA declaring Musharraf’s farmhouse as sub-jail is lawful and in accordance with law. He continued that police and administration is engaged in investigating Musharraf while the accused is also cooperating with them.
Earlier, the petitioner Ch. Muhammad Aslam Ghuman through his counsel Ch. Muhammad Ashraf Gujjar had challenged the notification of Chief Commissioner Islamabad to declare farmhouse of Musharaf as sub-jail.
In his petition, he made Chief Commissioner, Islamabad Capital Territory, Inspector General Police Islamabad Bani Amin Khan, SHO PS Secretariat, SHO PS Chak Shahzad, and General (Retd.) Pervez Musharraf as respondents.
He contended before the court that the accused had not joined the investigations despite the court directions and he is a proclaimed offender, thus, not entitled to discretionary relief.
He argued that the respondent No.1 & 2, to fulfill their malafide intentions and meet their ulterior designs moved the thing so briskly and in an unprecedented manner to facilitate, accommodate and to extend undue favour to the accused, which transformed in the shape of an impugned notification whereby the Chak Shahzad residence of the accused Musharaf was declared as sub-jail by the respondent No1.
The petitioner added that it is amazing that the residence of the accused who is facing very serious and heinous charges of terrorism, under the ATA, 1997, has been declared as ‘sub-jail’, which is illegal, unlawful, arbitrary and in sheer violation of law. He maintained that the accused who is facing the charges of terrorism can not be kept anywhere other than the regular jail or prison while the such an accused can not be kept at a place of his choice, so much so at his residence.
His counsel informed the court that approximately thousands other accused who are facing trail under Anti Terrorism Act, 1997, would also like to be kept at their residence as it has been done in the case of above said accused. Therefore, he said that the respondent No.1’s act of declaring the residence of the accused is illegal, unlawful, mala fide, without lawful authority, a worst example of colourful exercise of power, discriminatory, against the principles of equality as enshrined in the Constitution, hence, the same is liable to be set aside, varied and rescinded in the interest of justice.
He prayed before the court that the said notification is liable to be set-aside and therefore, the accused is to be kept at Adiala jail as instead of his residence.
After hearing the arguments of both the sides, the court rejected the petition.