25 February 2005	Friday	15 Muharram 1426

RAWALPINDI, Feb 24: The Lahore High Court Rawalpindi bench on Thursday dismissed a bail application of Alliance for the Restoration of Democracy (ARD) President Makhdoom Javed Hashmi who was jailed for 23 years for abetting mutiny.

Justice Mohammad Akhtar Shabbir, before whom the main appeal of Javed Hashmi was pending against his sentence, dismissed the miscellaneous application in which Advocate Mohammad Akram Sheikh, the legal counsel of the appellant, had prayed to release Mr Hashmi on bail by suspending the sentence.

The miscellaneous application had also contended that the conviction and sentence of the appellant as recorded by the trial court was patently and manifestly without jurisdiction and without lawful authority.

After rejection of the bail application, Akram Sheikh told Dawn that he would challenge the high court order before the Supreme Court. In the main appeal of Mr Hashmi, the high court had already summoned records of the trial court which jailed him.

Sessions Judge Islamabad Chaudhry Asad Raza, who tried Makhdoom Javed Hashmi in Rawalpindi Adiala Jail, had sentenced him to 23 years rigorous imprisonment on April 12, 2004 for abetting mutiny.

In his main appeal, the petitioner contended that the findings recorded by the trial court against him were based solely on surmises and conjectures than sound legal basis.

He stated that the case against the appellant could not have been registered on an incident taking place within the precincts of the National Assembly except by the National Assembly speaker who was designated as the custodian of the house.

Under the rules, nobody except the speaker was competent to take cognizance or initiate action, therefore the entire transaction of the registration of case, arrest of the appellant, his custody, alleged torture and subsequent trial was gravest encroachment on the functioning of the parliament and the speaker, he stated.

It is a settled legal position that the cafeteria of the National Assembly is an integral part of the house and what is said and done in the cafeteria of the house is privileged within the meaning of Article 66 of the Constitution, he stated, adding that the immunity to a member of the National Assembly is absolute.