ISLAMABAD: PTI activist Sanam Javed finally walked free following the Islamabad High Court’s (IHC) decision to declare her arrest “illegal” and allow her to return to Punjab.
On Monday, the IHC ordered her release with a direction to the police and other law enforcement agencies to refrain from arresting her again.The decision provided some respite to Javed, who has been incarcerated for over a year after being booked in a dozen cases since the May 9, 2023 riots.
In his judgement, Justice Miangul Hassan Aurangzeb barred her from leaving Islamabad while also advising the PTI activist to “avoid unnecessary rhetoric”, or else the court would reverse its order.On Tuesday, PTI shifted its activist to Khyber Pakhtunkhwa (KP) House along with her family members to avoid what it said was her “disappearance”.
On July 11, the Lahore High Court discharged her from a case related to the May 9 riots registered against her in Gujranwala.Javed challenged her physical remand in a new case from Gujranwala after bail was granted to her in all cases registered against her in Lahore.
However, she was rearrested by Islamabad police as soon as she stepped out of the central jail Gujranwala on Saturday, and was subsequently shifted to Islamabad.On Sunday, a judicial magistrate cleared her from the case, but she was arrested again, this time by the Balochistan Police.
The decision to allow Javed to walk free was pronounced by Justice Aurangzeb, who was hearing a petition filed by her father.Addressing the court, Attorney General of Pakistan (AGP) Mansoor Usman Awan said, “Sanam Javed will not be arrested in any further case.”
Following the proceedings, the IHC declared Javed’s arrest “illegal” and dismissed her bail petition.AGP Awan added that the Balochistan Police was not pressing the remand request.“Sanam Javed is now free and can go to her province [Punjab],” he said.
Echoing Monday’s remarks, Justice Aurangzeb sought a guarantee from Javed’s lawyer, Mian Ali Ashfaq, ensuring that she would avoid engaging in any more “unnecessary rhetoric”, to which the latter replied in the affirmative.
