ISLAMABAD - The Supreme Court of Pakistan Monday directed the Advocate General of Islamabad to submit report about actions taken against those involved in the attack on Sindh House in the federal capital.
A five-member bench of the apex court headed by Chief Justice of Pakistan Justice Umar Ata Bandial conducted hearing of the Presidential Reference for the interpretation of Article 63A.
Onset of the proceeding, Advocate General Sindh Salman Talibud Din informed that the Islamabad police were not cooperating with the Sindh government. He said that anti-terrorism provisions were not included in the FIR. The AG Islamabad stated that the provisions under Anti-Terrorism Act are not attracted in this case.
The chief justice said that the Islamabad administration registered case against the persons involved in the incident. He asked the IGP Islamabad to file report regarding the matter by today.
On the last hearing, the AGP candidly expressed enough regrets over the incident, where the Sindh House main gate was damaged. He informed that an FIR has been lodged by SHO Police Station Secretariat. Following that FIR 13 protesters were arrested under various sections of the PPC 146, 147, 149, 186 and 427, which are bailable offences. The AGP informed that they were granted bail by the executive magistrate. The PTI legislatures and workers forcibly entered the building located in the Red Zone of the federal capital just days before the voting on the joint opposition’s no-trust motion against Prime Minister Imran Khan.
The PTI National Assembly members (MNAs), Faheem Khan and Ataullah, along with a group of charged party workers entered the Sindh House, knocking down a gate and shouting slogans and holding Lotas (spouted globulars) in their hands to symbolise turncoats. As a result, the workers who protested against the ‘dissident’ party MNAs and stormed the Sindh House were released on personal assurance, on March 20. The Islamabad Capital Territory Police had registered an FIR against PTI workers for violating Section 144 imposed in the capital and also included sections for vandalizing the government property. The workers were produced before the area magistrate, who granted them bail on the personal assurance.
A five-member bench of the apex court headed by Chief Justice of Pakistan Justice Umar Ata Bandial conducted hearing of the Presidential Reference for the interpretation of Article 63A.
Onset of the proceeding, Advocate General Sindh Salman Talibud Din informed that the Islamabad police were not cooperating with the Sindh government. He said that anti-terrorism provisions were not included in the FIR. The AG Islamabad stated that the provisions under Anti-Terrorism Act are not attracted in this case.
The chief justice said that the Islamabad administration registered case against the persons involved in the incident. He asked the IGP Islamabad to file report regarding the matter by today.
On the last hearing, the AGP candidly expressed enough regrets over the incident, where the Sindh House main gate was damaged. He informed that an FIR has been lodged by SHO Police Station Secretariat. Following that FIR 13 protesters were arrested under various sections of the PPC 146, 147, 149, 186 and 427, which are bailable offences. The AGP informed that they were granted bail by the executive magistrate. The PTI legislatures and workers forcibly entered the building located in the Red Zone of the federal capital just days before the voting on the joint opposition’s no-trust motion against Prime Minister Imran Khan.
The PTI National Assembly members (MNAs), Faheem Khan and Ataullah, along with a group of charged party workers entered the Sindh House, knocking down a gate and shouting slogans and holding Lotas (spouted globulars) in their hands to symbolise turncoats. As a result, the workers who protested against the ‘dissident’ party MNAs and stormed the Sindh House were released on personal assurance, on March 20. The Islamabad Capital Territory Police had registered an FIR against PTI workers for violating Section 144 imposed in the capital and also included sections for vandalizing the government property. The workers were produced before the area magistrate, who granted them bail on the personal assurance.
