ISLAMABAD, April 29: The Islamabad High Court (IHC) on Monday dismissed a petition seeking transfer of former president General (retired) Pervez Musharraf from his farmhouse to the Adiala Jail.

The petition was filed by Mohammad Aslam Ghumman, the complainant in the judges’ detention case, against the April 20 notification issued by the chief commissioner Islamabad declaring the Chak Shahzad farmhouse of Gen Musharraf as a sub-jail.

When Justice Riaz Ahmed Khan resumed the hearing of the petition, the petitioner’s counsel Chaudhry Mohammad Ashraf Gujjar said after dismissal of the pre-arrest bail application of Mr Musharraf, the chief commissioner and the inspector general of Islamabad police extended undue favour to the former president by declaring his farmhouse as a sub-jail.

He said after the ATC sent the former army chief on judicial remand he should have been kept in the Adiala Jail.

However, the police took Gen Musharraf to Chak Shahzad and then moved an application for declaring his farmhouse as a sub-jail.

Referring to section 3 of the prisoners act, the counsel said the farmhouse could not be declared as a sub-jail for an individual because previously the premises had never been used for this purpose.

He said a luxury residence cannot be declared as a sub-jail for an individual.

He requested the court to set aside the notification of April 20 according to which the residence of former general had been declared as a sub-jail.

Additional attorney general Raja Javed Ashraf, representing the federal government, adopted before the court that the former army chief was a high-value target.

He said the former military ruler may be punished by the courts for any wrongdoing but his life cannot be put at risk.

He said rules 3 and 4 of the prison code empowered the government to declare a building as a sub-jail even for an individual.

“The chief commissioner issued the notification declaring the Chak Shahzad farmhouse in accordance with the law,” he added.

Musharraf escape case

Justice Shaukat Aziz Siddiqui of the IHC sought an explanation from the additional secretary interior Captain (retired) Tariq Hayat Khan for not implementing the court regarding action against Inspector General of Islamabad police Bani Amin Khan in the escape case of former president General Pervez Musharraf.

Justice Siddiqui on April 18 had dismissed the pre-arrest bail petition of Mr Musharraf and ordered the police for his arrest.

However, the former military chief with the support of his private guards escaped from the premises and reached his Chak Shahzad farmhouse.

The judge directed the IGP to appear in person to explain “why proper police force was not deputed to handle the situation.” The IGP on April 19 submitted a report to the court stating that following his escape when the police raided the farmhouse Mr Musharraf was not there.

He also filed an appeal with the Supreme Court to avoid any adverse action but the apex court on April 25 disposed of the plea and directed the secretary interior to take action against the appellant in accordance with the law.

On Monday, Justice Siddiqui observed that the interior ministry deliberately lingered on the matter and instead of taking action against Bani Amin Khan had referred the matter to the law minister for seeking an opinion.

“There was no ambiguity in the order and there was no need for seeking an opinion from the law ministry on this simple matter,” observed the judge.

He directed the additional secretary interior to explain on Tuesday as to why he had forwarded the matter to the law ministry.

The court also directed the secretary interior to submit a compliance report on the orders passed by him as well as the Supreme Court.

During the hearing, Khushdil Khan Malik, the joint secretary (law) at the interior ministry, informed the court that the authorities had transferred him from the post after he refused to follow ‘illegal’ orders.

He said he had recommended disciplinary action against the IGP Bani Amin Khan and suggested that the matter should be referred to the establishment division.

However, the authorities sent the case to the law ministry.