ISLAMABAD: Chewing gum in court ridicules the dignity of the court and lowers police morale, Additional District and Sessions Judge Mohammad Adnan has claimed in a report submitted to the Islamabad High Court (IHC).

Judge Adnan on Jan 31 dismissed a pre-arrest bail petition by Yasir Arafat under section 498 of the Criminal Procedure Code because Mr Arafat was chewing gum inside the courtroom.

On Feb 3, an IHC member inspection team (MIH) sought a report from Judge Adnan in his matter.

In a written report submitted to the court, the judge said that it was not within the norms and practices of the court to allow an accused to chew gum inside the courtroom.

“Such acts of interruptions are bound to ridicule the authority of court and lower the morale of police authorities to investigate him,” the judge said.

According to the judge: “For seeking a bail before arrest, an accused voluntarily/unconditionally (without conditions to his habits etc.) surrenders himself being extra ordinary concession as he is involved in some cognizable offence in which police has right to arrest him without warrants.”

Judge went on to state that “when accused was admitted to ad-interim bail the conditions include: applicant shall also join the investigation as and when required by the police and shall attend this court, regularly till the final disposal of the case.”

Explaining the Jan 31 incident, he said: “On the first call, accused was absent, meaning thereby that despite having knowledge of date he did not attend the court nor any intimation was there on his behalf. Yet, out of just grace shown in the interest of justice, his matter was kept aside.

“On second call when he appeared, while his case was in progress, he was chewing the chewing-gum in a way that caught attention and interrupted the undersigned while performing the judicial functions.”

He said the situation could either have been handled by issuing the accused a show-cause notice or by dismissing his bail plea. He said the dismissal of bail before arrest on such grounds did not curtail the liberty of an accused but gave the opportunity to seek relief from the appropriate forum.

He said in the report that the accused could not be allowed to chew gum or indulge in any other habit inside the courtroom “at the cost of interruption of judicial proceedings”.

He concluded: “Decorum/norms of court was the key factor while passing such order, so that people in general and those in particularly present in court must learn such norms and educate others.”

Published in Dawn, February 6th, 2020