ATC rejects Musharraf’s bail plea in Judges’ detention case

CrimeATC rejects Musharraf’s bail plea in Judges’ detention case

ISLAMABAD: The anti-terrorist court (ATC) in Islamabad on Wednesday rejected a bail plea filed by former military ruler Pervez Musharraf in the judges’ detention case.

Earlier, during the hearing of the case by ATC judge Kausar Abbas Zaidi, public prosecutor Amir Nadeem Tabish said clause 780-A pertaining to terrorism had been added to the list of charges against Musharraf, making the case against him even more strong.

In his arguments, Tabish added that judges and their family members had been detained in their homes for months and that the charges against Musharraf were of a serious nature, who therefore should not be granted bail.

He further said that the emergency imposed by Musharraf in the country on November 3, 2007 was detrimental not only towards the judges but for the public at large.

However, Musharraf’s counsel, Ilyas Siddiqui, argued that there was no evidence against his client and requested the court to grant the bail application.

Tabish moreover told the judge that he had been appointed public prosecutor in the case only until the court’s ruling on Musharraf’s bail plea, adding that he had no authority to present a charge sheet in the case.

On which, the judge expressed his amazement and asked as to how it could be the case that one public prosecutor was appointed for Musharraf’s bail plea and another to present charges against him.

Subsequently, the judge inquired of the investigation officer as to when would the charge sheet against the former military ruler be finalised. Responding to which, the officer said that three institutions had been approached in this respect, however, all had so far failed to submit their responses.

The court reserved its ruling on the bail plea after the parties concluded their arguments.

Asad Haroon
Asad Haroon
All the information published under this Author is via Web desk/Team/Contributors. Opinons and views of the Organization may differ from the views represented here

Must read

Advertisement