Guarded by his personal security staff, Musharraf, however, was rushed to his vehicle as soon as the court ordered his arrest while Islamabad police made no effort to abide by the court orders and let him go to his residence at Chak Shehzad. In its 6-page order, the bench said that the petitioner is a proclaimed offender and cannot claim normal right of any accused under the statute - the basic ingredient of pre-arrest bail ie registration of case with mala fide intention, condition precedent to exercise discretion in petitioner is specifically nominated in the FIR and his person is also required for further investigation, therefore, request of pre-arrest bail of petitioner is hereby declined - he be taken into custody and dealt with in accordance with law.
Meanwhile, after rejection of his bail plea from the IHC, Advocate on Record Sardar Siddique approached at about 3 pm the institution branch of the Supreme Court of Pakistan to file a petition for leave to appeal against the order of the IHC with a prayer for pre-arrest bail of Musharraf. However, the office did not receive the petition, saying the office time was over.
Earlier, Musharraf appeared before IHC amid tight security to seek a bail extension in the judges' confinement case, however his plea was dismissed. Heavy contingent of police and rangers were posted in the court's premises for security purposes. However, Musharraf faced no resistance from this heavy security contingent when he left the premises after the judge ordered his arrest.
During the proceedings of case, Justice Shaukat Aziz Siddiqui remarked that Musharraf was accused of destroying the judicial system. The court ordered that the charge of terrorism be added to the case. Musharraf's lawyer Malik Qamar Afzal told the court that his client did not order illegal detention of judges and added that barbed wire was placed around judge's residence for security purposes. He said that Musharraf never placed judges in habeas corpus therefore it does not fall under section 344. "If it's 344, then it's a bailable offence," he argued.
He told the court that no notice had been issued to his client in section 22A application. Justice Siddiqui said that under the law it was not necessary to issue a notice. Musharraf's counsel told the court that the complainant had registered an FIR against his client for illegal confinement of 60 judges but so far not a single judge had filed an appeal against Musharraf.
Afzal told the court that the complainant is not a direct party to the case; to which Justice Shaukat Aziz Siddiqui said that in cognisable crime, anybody can file an application. The judge further said the whole of Pakistan was hurt by the unconstitutional act of Musharraf. "Putting judges in illegal detention is terrorism," observed the judge.
Chaudhry Mohammad Aslam Ghumman, complainant while citing Musharraf's statement in University of Texas, said that Musharraf had acknowledged that putting judges in illegal detention was his major fault. Deputy Attorney General told the court that Musharraf did not join the investigation despite court's order. Following the arguments, the court ordered Musharraf's arrest and rejected his bail application.
Later, the law enforcement agencies including personnel of Islamabad police were stationed at the main gate of Musharraf's residence upon his arrival from the court. The law enforcement agencies blocked access of the media and others to his residence. Some supporters of Pervez Musharraf gathered outside his residence and chanted slogans against court's decision. The former military ruler was granted a six-day interim bail last week. The case is based on an FIR against the retired general registered in August 11, 2009 on the complaint of Chaudhry Mohammad Aslam Ghumman advocate.