An anti-terrorism court (ATC) in Islamabad showed strong dissatisfaction with the failure to present the case record in the protest case involving lawyer and activist Imaan Mazari and Hadi Ali. The court summoned DSP Legal Naeem Yousaf in person and warned him of possible arrest for providing false information.
ATC Judge Abul Hasnat Muhammad Zulqarnain summoned the DSP due to the investigating officer’s absence and the non-availability of the case record. The hearing on the bail applications for Mazari and Hadi was postponed until October 13.
The judge objected when the DSP addressed the court in English, instructing him to speak in Urdu. The DSP stated that the investigating officer was out of the city and presented a printed WhatsApp message as proof, which the judge rejected, demanding the original document.
Later, the DSP informed the court that the investigating officer was in Gilgit-Baltistan and had submitted a report to that effect. He added that the officer’s phone was switched off and that it might take 10 to 15 days to establish contact. The judge expressed frustration with this explanation and refused to accept verbal assurances.
At one point, handcuffs were brought into the courtroom, and the security in-charge was summoned. The judge ordered that the DSP should not be allowed to leave the premises and instructed the gate staff to prevent his exit if necessary. The DSP was warned he could be arrested for giving incorrect information, with the judge threatening to jail both him and the SP for six months if no evidence was presented on record.
The judge reprimanded the DSP, saying, “You should be ashamed. You have turned this into hooliganism.” He emphasized that the court must have the authority to enforce its orders immediately and called for a “judicial force” capable of this, lamenting that outdated laws from 1898 and 1860 seemed still to be in effect.
Defense lawyer Riasat Ali Azad argued that aside from the terrorism charges, the case involved bailable offenses, and since the prosecution’s request for physical remand had already been denied, waiting indefinitely for the record was unnecessary. He criticized the investigating officer’s absence as a mockery of the court.
Another defense lawyer, Zafar Khokhar, pointed out that the investigating officer could not simply take the case record with him. The court indicated it would issue a detailed order addressing the investigating officer’s absence. The bail hearing for Mazari and Hadi was adjourned until October 13.
Leave an opinion