ISLAMABAD: The Supreme Court of Pakistan on Friday clubbed May 9 cases of Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) founder Imran Khan and Omar Sarfaraz Cheema.
A three-judge bench, headed by Chief Justice Yahya Afridi, heard the case of Cheema’s alleged involvement in May 9 violence.
The chief justice said this case would be heard with that of Imran Khan next week. He said the court wanted to ensure uniformity in physical remand cases. He said the cases of Imran Khan and Omar Sarfaraz Cheema were of similar nature.
Cheema’s counsel said police arrested his client first and then registered a case against him.
The Punjab government lawyer said the court had not given even a day’s physical remand of Cheema. He said a weapon had to be recovered from him.
The court attached the case with that of Imran Khan and adjourned the hearing till April 24.
Meanwhile, the bench in bail cancellation of 9th May incidents case against the Lahore High Court order directed the Anti-Terrorism Courts to ensure that the rights of the accused-respondents to a fair trial should not be hindered in any manner.
Special Prosecutor Punjab Syed Zulfiqar Abbas Naqvi argued that there are certain findings recorded in the order under challenge which are beyond the mandate of law and are against the material which was before the Anti-Terrorism Court and the Lahore High Court.
The Additional Prosecutor-General, Punjab, present in Court, informed that challan in this case has been submitted.
However, the bench noted that it would not be appropriate for this Court to pass any finding on merits, lest it may prejudice the case of either party during the trial. “We are mindful of subsection 7 of Section 19 of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, whereunder a trial is to be concluded within seven days by the Anti-Terrorism Courts and the failure to do so entails duty on the Anti-Terrorism Court to inform the Chief Justice of the High Court concerned for appropriate directions.”
The order said that in light of the peculiar circumstances, notably the large number of accused persons, the multiplicity of cases arising from the cases of similar nature reported separately and the considerable number of prosecution witnesses, we direct that the trial in the instant case be concluded within a period of four months from the date of receipt of this order.
“We further direct the Anti-Terrorism Court to ensure that the rights of the accused-respondents to a fair trial should not be hindered in any manner whatsoever.”
The special prosecutor informed that, in some cases, the accused-respondents have been nominated in multiple FIRs, leading to trials, which are pending before various Anti-Terrorism Courts. Consequently, it may not be possible for them to appear in person before all of the courts, and therefore, their applications for exemption, if any, should be considered in accordance with the law.
He submitted that in some cases the accused-respondents have not been provided the copies of the charge and the testimony of prosecution witnesses, which requires them to prepare effective defence as mandated under the enabling provisions of the law and Article 10-A of the Constitution.
The Court noted that the matter also requires attention of the Anti-Terrorism Courts. In addition, the complaints regarding the venue of the Anti-Terrorism Courts, if any, should be considered by the respective Chief Justices of the High Courts and the Administrative Judges of the Anti-Terrorism Courts.
The chief justice the concerned provincial chief justices, if they deem appropriate, may call fortnightly report from the Anti-Terrorism Courts/Administrative Judges of the Anti-Terrorism Courts to ensure that not only the proceedings are carried out expeditiously and in accordance with law, but also the rights to fair trial of the accused-respondents are not hindered in any manner, whatsoever.
However, this order shall not preclude the prosecution from renewing its plea if any of abuse of bail or non-cooperation by the accused is brought on record, in consequence thereof, the might of the law is to prevail.
Copyright Business Recorder, 2025
Comments