Pakistan · World · Independent Digital Newsroom
Lawyers, including State Ali Azad and Zainab Janjua, appeared before the court.Justice Inam asked whether the lawyers had received copies of the relevant documents.“Copies have not been provided,” State Ali Azad told the court, adding that he wanted to examine how the indictment had been framed.Azad argued that the Anti-Terrorism Court (ATC) had passed the order without jurisdiction.
He said the case had remained before Judge Abul Hasanat Muhammad Zulqarnain from March 12, 2025, until a period shortly before the current proceedings.Referring to the Zulfikar Ali Bhutto case, the lawyer argued that the court in which a challan had been submitted should hear the case.
He also maintained that copies of the documents had not been provided to the accused.Azad said the charges had to be read out to the accused, which he argued had not happened because they were not physically present in court at the time.
He added that proceedings could not be advanced in their absence and that framing charges without their physical presence also violated a decision of the National Judicial Policy Making Committee.Read: Imaan, Hadi boycott proceedings as ATC records witness statements“The charge is the foundation of a trial.
If that foundation is defective, the entire structure of the trial built on it would be unlawful,” Azad argued.Justice Inam asked whether the trial was being conducted through video link.
Azad replied that it had initially been held through video link but that, since the previous hearing, proceedings had begun inside the jail.The judge then asked whose signatures appeared on the indictment.“My signatures are there, but the accused did not sign, although their signatures should legally have been obtained,” Azad said.Justice Inam questioned whether proceedings could continue through a video link, noting that the accused had been present through the….
He also said copies had not been delivered to the accused in jail and that the defence had submitted an affidavit to this effect.“You should not have taken the copies, then,” Justice Inam remarked.Azad said all the applications filed by the defence before the ATC had been dismissed.
He added that the lawyers had also sought the case record and the video recording.The judge asked where it was written that the accused had to be physically present for the charges to be framed.
Azad responded that the defence had also challenged the terrorism provisions in the case.The lawyer repeatedly urged the High Court to suspend the trial proceedings while the appeals were being considered.“We will see and let you know,” Justice Inam said.Zainab informed the court that the case had been fixed for a jail trial at 2:30 pm next Monday.“We will pass an order and inform you,” Justice Inam said, adding that….
They were produced before an Islamabad ATC in connection with a case registered at Kohsar Police Station.Police sought 30-day physical remand, but ATC Judge Abul Hasnat Muhammad Zulqarnain rejected the request and sent the couple on judicial remand.
The judge noted that although they had been nominated in the FIR as members of an unlawful assembly, no weapon had been attributed to either accused.On September 27, the court issued a contempt notice to the Adiala jail superintendent after the authorities failed to facilitate the signing and transmission of the documents and also failed to produce the accused through video link.
Two days later, the issue was resolved after Imaan and Hadi signed the required powers of attorney.On September 29, the ATC ended the contempt proceedings against the jail authorities and separately confirmed that notices had been issued on the couple’s bail applications, with arguments scheduled before Judge Abul Hasnat.On October 7, the ATC had framed charges against Imaan and Hadi in the case related to the alleged violation of a….
