| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2026 SLG 4403 = 2026 SLD 4403 |
Islamabad High Court
Writ Petition No.2255 of 2025
Presented By: INAAM AMEEN MINHAS, J.
Petitioner by: Mr. Nadeem Ahmed Shah, Advocate.
Respondents by: Mr. Fahad Khan Tareen, AAG and Sajid Hussain, FCPO, Pakistan Navy.
Writ Petition No.2255 of 2025
Presented By: INAAM AMEEN MINHAS, J.
Petitioner by: Mr. Nadeem Ahmed Shah, Advocate.
Respondents by: Mr. Fahad Khan Tareen, AAG and Sajid Hussain, FCPO, Pakistan Navy.
Ex. LNTG No.980198 Israr Ahmed
VERSUS
Federation of Pakistan and others
Law: Constitution of Pakistan, 1973
Section: 4, 10A
INAAM AMEEN MINHAS, J. Through the instant writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the conviction and sentence awarded to him, as well as his dismissal from service, by the Court Martial, whereafter the Naval Court of Appeal modified the sentence while upholding his dismissal from service. Brief facts, necessary for disposal of the instant writ petition are that the petitioner a Leading Navigation Technician (General) in the Pakistan Navy was unlawfully arrested by Naval Intelligence on 25.01.2015, illegally detained, and subjected to torture. The petitioner was tried by Court Martial without being provided a charge sheet, a summary of evidence, an opportunity to produce defense witnesses and above all without providing an opportunity to engage counsel to defend him. The sentence was awarded along with dismissal from service on 01.01.2017 and thereafter the petitioner engaged a counsel and filed the appeal, which was dismissed while modifying the sentence from 05 years to 02 years vide letter dated 16.05.2019. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that during the Court Martial proceedings as well as in the Court of Appeal, the petitioner was not allowed to engage a counsel and to defend himself, which is a violation of 2 W.P No.2255/2025. Articles 4 and 10A of the Constitution with regard to fair trial and due process; that in view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of Pakistan, the custody, investigation and alleged recoveries by Naval Intelligence has no legal sanctity; that the recovery of alleged material of sectarian hatred from the petitioner, in absence of recovery witness, cannot be considered to have been proved against him; that the prosecution failed to produce any evidence to establish that the petitioner himself contributed or collected any amount from Pakistan Navy personnel and civilians; that the PWs made improvement in their statements during the Court Martial proceedings; that Court Martial and Court of Appeal failed to appreciate law and committed grave miscarriage…