LHC orders to produce Parvez Elahi before court today.

 

ISLAMABAD/RAWALPINDI  -  Police on Tuesday re­captured Chaudhry Parvez Elahi, president Pakistan Tehreek-e-In­saf (PTI) party, just a few hours after the Is­lamabad High Court (IHC) suspended his detention and ordered his release.

The Islamabad Po­lice rearrested former Punjab Chief Minis­ter Elahi soon after he was released from Po­lice Lines Headquar­ters. The police de­tained him once again at the main gate of Po­lice Lines Headquarters and shifted him to un­known location. 

Islamabad Police spokesman told report­ers that the counter­terrorism department (CTD) apprehended Chaudhry Parvez Elahi for his alleged involve­ment in a case number 3/23 lodged with Police Station CTD. The arrest of Elahi by Islamabad Police triggered a storm of criticism against po­lice on social media. 

Sardar Abdul Razziq, the lawyer of Parvez Ela­hi while talking to re­porters condemned the police action against his client. He said that the police had not only made mockery of law and justice system but also crossed all the limits. 

Earlier, the Islamabad High Court (IHC) suspended the de­tention orders of Parvez Elahi under section 3 of the Mainte­nance of Public Order (MPO) and ordered his release. A sin­gle bench of IHC comprising Justice Tariq Mehmood Jah­angiri conducted hearing of a petition filed by Elahi through his counsel Sardar Abdul Raziq Khan challenging his de­tention under 3 MPO.

Besides issuing Elahi’s re­leasing order, the bench said that Deputy Commissioner, ICT, Islamabad and the peti­tioner shall appear, in per­son, on the next date of hear­ing. After hearing of the arguments, the IHC bench said that prima-facie, it is es­tablished that the impugned order has been passed with­out having any lawful author­ity, incriminating evidence, prima facie in violation of the order passed by the Lahore High Court, Lahore.

It added, “Apparently, the persons / officials, who ar­rested the petitioner, have committed contempt of Court for which proper proceed­ings have been initiated in the Hon’ble Lahore High Court, Lahore and notices have been issued to the Inspector Gen­eral of Police, ICT, Islamabad and other delinquents, hence by placing reliance upon the law laid down by Hon’ble Su­preme Court of Pakistan in a case reported as “Federation of Pakistan v. Mrs. Amtul Jalil Khawaja” (PLD 2003 SC 442) and “Maulvi Farid Ahmad v. Government of West Paki­stan” (PLD 1965 Lahore 135), the impugned order dated 01.09.2023, passed by Dis­trict Magistrate, ICT, Islam­abad, is suspended and the petitioner namely Ch Parvez Elahi, is ordered to be re­leased forthwith, if not re­quired in any other case.”

Justice Jahangiri also said, “the petitioner is directed to ensure that after being re­leased from jail, he will not par­ticipate in any unlawful activity nor contribute to any activi­ty harmful for the public safety and tranquility in the society.”

In his petition, the petition­er challenged the order dat­ed 01.09.2023, passed by District Magistrate, ICT, Is­lamabad, whereby the peti­tioner has been detained un­der Section 3(1) of the West Pakistan Maintenance of Pub­lic Order Ordinance, 1960 for a period of fifteen (15) days.

During the hearing, coun­sel for the petitioner contend­ed that the petitioner was in the custody of police since 01.06.2023; he has not com­mitted any offence, there is no evidence in support of al­legations levelled in the im­pugned order; the impugned order is not a speaking one, malafide, without jurisdic­tion, erroneous and not ten­able under the law, hence lia­ble to be set-aside.

He also contended that the petitioner is behind the bars since last more than three months, was released by the orders of the Lahore High Court, Lahore wherein the LHC has categorically mentioned that “Petitioner shall not be arrested in terms mentioned therein including the NAB or any other authority / agen­cy / office etc., nor shall be de­tained under any law relating to preventive detention.”

The counsel further con­tended that the respondent / government has not as­sailed this order, so the peti­tioner was released and while he was proceeding towards his residence, he was appre­hended by the police on the basis of impugned order dat­ed 01.09.2023, passed by Dis­trict Magistrate, ICT, Islam­abad, so wife of the petitioner applied for recovery of her husband / Pervaiz Elahi (de­tenue) confined in Attock Jail pursuant to an order of Dis­trict Magistrate Islamabad passed under Section 3 of Maintenance of Public Order Ordinance, wherein the La­hore High Court, Lahore has given observation in Writ Pe­tition No.54396 of 2023, ti­tled as “Qaisara Elahi v. Care Taker Government of Punjab, etc.”, which is as under:

“07. Without going into the merit of detention or­der passed by District Mag­istrate/Deputy Commission­er Islamabad, it is settled position of law that applica­tion and extent of respective Maintenance of Public Or­der Ordinance is limited to the Capital Territory of Islam­abad and it has no extension to any province of Pakistan, therefore, District Magistrate Islamabad had no authori­ty to issue any order for ar­rest or detention of detenu who was residing and present in another province and that too in the custody of NAB or the Court; vires of such order can be challenged at appro­priate forum but by all means Islamabad Police has inter­fered into the jurisdiction of this Court and also violated the order of this Court dat­ed 01.09.2023 passed in Writ Petition No. 53749/2023 ti­tled Elahi vs Care Taker Gov­ernment of Punjab, etc which was in the form of direction like “as not to arrest or de­tain the detenu in any case or even under any law relat­ing to preventive detention”. If Islamabad Police were acting under the order of a District Magistrate, they can simply report back to the magistrate with a copy of restraining or­der of this Court, but arrest of detenu was not justified in any circumstances which is il­legal, therefore, when the ar­rest was illegal, the detention of detenu (Mr. Elahi) also be­comes as one without lawful authority.”(emphasis added) 

Petitioner’s counsel argued that no F.I.R. against the peti­tioner has ever been registered for provoking or creating dis­turbance of law and order sit­uation or participation.