Release of prisoners: SC hears petition against high courts’ decision today

ISLAMABAD: The Supreme Court will today (Wednesday) resume hearing on a petition challenging the verdict of Islamabad High Court (IHC) granting bail to 408 inmates imprisoned at the Adiala Jail under minor offences in view of coronavirus outbreak. A five-member bench of the Supreme Court, headed by Chief Justice of Pakistan Chief Justice Gulzar Ahmed, on Monday suspended the IHC order granting bail to 408 Adiala Jail prisoners. The apex court had also restrained the other high courts as well as the provincial governments, including the Islamabad Capital Territory (ICT) and Gilgit-Baltistan, from releasing the prisoners from the jails.

The court had also appointed Sheikh Zameer Hussain, ASC, as amicus curiae to assist it and adjourned the matter for Wednesday after issuing notices to Niazullah Khan Niazi, Advocate General, Islamabad Capital Territory (ICT); Tariq Mehmood Khokhar, Additional Attorney General; Amer Ali Ahmed, Chief Commissioner ICT; Hamza Shafqat, Deputy Commissioner ICT; Waqar-ud-Din Syyid, Deputy Inspector General of Police ICT; Secretary Health, ICT, Inspector General (Prisons), ICT, home secretaries of all the provinces as well as the remaining advocate generals.

Similarly, notices were also issued to the Punjab, Sindh, Balochistan and KP, IGPs of Gilgit-Baltistan and prosecutor generals of the NAB and Anti-Narcotics Force (ANF) respectively.

One Raja Nadeem filed a petition with the Supreme Court under Article 185(3) read with 184(3) of the Constitution seeking leave to appeal against the IHC judgment.

Meanwhile, an application was filed with the Supreme Court on Tuesday, seeking impleadment as the party to the constitutional petition challenging the verdict of Islamabad High Court (IHC) granting bail to 408 prisoners.

Ajmal Raza Bhatti advocate filed the application under Order V Rule 2(2) read with Order XXXIII, Rule 6 of the Supreme Court of Pakistan Rules 1980 for impleadment as party in the said matter.

Bhatti submitted that his valuable rights were involved in different cases and subject matter of the instant matter. He further pleaded that he wanted to assists the court in the instant case, and if he was unheard, he could suffer an irreparable loss and legal injury.