Hafiz Saeed confined to his house in Lahore

September 21, 2009 08:55 am | Updated December 17, 2016 04:15 am IST - Lahore

In this May 23, 2005 photo, Hafiz Mohammad Saeed, chief of the Jamaat-ud-Dawa, is seen in Islamabad.

In this May 23, 2005 photo, Hafiz Mohammad Saeed, chief of the Jamaat-ud-Dawa, is seen in Islamabad.

The police in Lahore have confined Hafiz Saeed, founder-leader of the Jamat-ud-Dawa/Laskhar-e-Taiba, to his house, but not arrested or detained him, his lawyer said on Monday.

Saeed, against whom two cases were registered last week under the Anti-Terrorism Act, was prevented from leaving his house to lead the Eid prayers at the Gaddafi stadium, his lawyer A.K. Dogar said.

“No warrant served”

“Since last night, my client has been restrained from moving out of his house temporarily. But no warrant for his arrest or house arrest has yet been served on him,” he told The Hindu.

It was not clear whether the restraints on Mr. Saeed were connected to the two FIRs filed against him in Faisalabad last week under the Act.

The lawyer said Saeed was told by the police that he was being confined to his home “for reasons of his own security.”

Petition framed

Mr. Dogar said he had framed a petition for quashing the cases against Saeed. He plans to file it in the Lahore High Court later this week, when the court reopens after the Eid break.

According to him, the cases held no water, as Section 11 F (4) of the Act, which has been invoked in both the FIRs, was applicable only if the organisation was proscribed, and the Jamat-ud-Dawa was not proscribed.

Section 11 F (4) says: “A person commits an offence [under the Act], if he addresses a meeting or delivers a sermon to a religious gathering, by any means — whether verbal, written, electronic, digital or otherwise — and the purpose of his address or sermon is to encourage support for a proscribed organisation or to further its activities.”

“No notification”

Mr. Dogar said that only last month some Jamat-ud-Dawa activists were ordered to be released by the High Court on the very same ground. A two-judge Bench asked Punjab’s Deputy Advocate-General to produce the notification that the JuD was proscribed. “He was unable to produce it, because there is no notification.”

0 / 0
Sign in to unlock member-only benefits!
  • Access 10 free stories every month
  • Save stories to read later
  • Access to comment on every story
  • Sign-up/manage your newsletter subscriptions with a single click
  • Get notified by email for early access to discounts & offers on our products
Sign in

Comments

Comments have to be in English, and in full sentences. They cannot be abusive or personal. Please abide by our community guidelines for posting your comments.

We have migrated to a new commenting platform. If you are already a registered user of The Hindu and logged in, you may continue to engage with our articles. If you do not have an account please register and login to post comments. Users can access their older comments by logging into their accounts on Vuukle.