PESHAWAR: Peshawar High Court on Wednesday rejected pleas of three military court convicts challenging their conviction and seeking inclusion of their period of detention in their prison terms.

A bench consisting of Justice Sahibzada Asadullah and Justice Fazal Subhan pronounced its order after completion of arguments over the matter.

The pleas were filed by female family members of the three convicts in the human rights cell of the high court and were converted into petitions by the court.

One of the petitions was field by a woman, Dilshad Begum, requesting for the release of her son Usman Shah, who was convicted by the military court and sentenced to 16 years rigorous imprisonment.

She claimed that her son was only 14 when he had been handed over to the security forces in Swat around 15 years ago. She claimed that since his arrest his son had remained in custody of security forces and later on shifted to prison.

The second petition was filed by Bukht Naseeba Bibi, whose son Umer Ali was convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment

She also claimed that they were residents of Swat and during military operation they had handed over the convict to the security forces around 15 years ago.

Similarly, the third petition was filed by Izzat Bibi, whose husband Sher Rahman was convicted and sentenced to 20 years rigorous imprisonment.

All the three convicts were tried by the military courts for their links with militant outfits.

The petitioners had requested the court to set free the convicts. They claimed that the convicts were innocent and they had no links with militancy.

They stated that the convicts had already spent considerable time in detention and were entitled to be released in the light of section 382-B of the Code of Criminal Procedure by including their pre-conviction period of detention in their prison terms.

They claimed that the Field General Court Martial did not properly conduct the military trial and the convicts were also not provided lawyers of their choice to defend them.

Additional attorney general Sanaullah Khan argued that these petitions were not maintainable and were liable to be dismissed.

He argued that Section 135 of Pakistan Army Act, 1952 read with Rule 53(d) of the Pakistan Army Act Rules suggested that the length of time, during which the accused had remained arrested, should be considered by the court martial.

He contended that the high court in exercise of its constitutional jurisdiction had earlier declined to interfere in conviction and sentence awarded by Field General Court Martial.

He contended that all the provisions of Army Act were complied with and right of appeal including the right to appoint a counsel of their choice was also given to the convicts.

The AAG stated that the provisions of Rule 53 (d) of the Pakistan Army Act Rules, 1954 were similar in nature to the provisions of section 382-B of the CrPC.

He argued that these convicts were subject to Pakistan Army Act, which was a special law, and they were tried by Field General Court Martial for offence under section 59 of the Act, whereas section 382-B CrPC was a general law.

Furthermore, he argued that Section 135 of Pakistan Army Act, which had declared that sentence awarded to a person under said Act, would commence on the date on which the original proceedings were signed by the President, or in the case of summary court martial by the court, had eliminated any misconception regarding applicability of benefit of section 382-B CrPC.

Published in Dawn, May 15th, 2025