Musharraf’s non-bailable warrant : Maintainability of application to be argued

IHC gives time to counsel adjourning case till April 25.


Our Correspondent April 07, 2016
IHC gives time to counsel adjourning case till April 25. PHOTO: IHC WEBSITE

ISLAMABAD: The Islamabad High Court directed on Thursday the counsel for the former president Pervez Musharraf to present arguments over maintainability of an application challenging non-bailable arrest warrants issued against the former president in Abdul Rasheed murder case.

Justice Aamer Farooq directed the counsel, Malik Tahir Mehmood, to satisfy the court if the application was still maintainable as the former president had gone abroad for medical treatment after his name was removed from the Exit Control List. The counsel said that he has recently obtained the apex court’s judgment and wishes to present his arguments in the case after going through the court’s orders. The judge later adjourned the case till April 25.

Meanwhile, the counsel submitted a judgment of the Supreme Court where the apex court had dismissed a government appeal against removing Musharraf’s name from the ECL.

Musharraf has challenged the issuance of non-bailable arrests warrants against him, as well as the ‘attitude’ shown by a subordinate court.

On February 20, a district and sessions court issued arrest warrants against the former president with directions to forfeit surety bonds after he failed to appear before the court in connection with the Rasheed murder case.

Mehmood has argued that Musharraf remained the head of the state and the chief of the army and yet he has been treated as a criminal. The impugned order was not sustainable and liable to be set aside, the counsel added.

While dismissing the application for his exemption from court appearance, the judge had ordered to forfeit the surety bonds.


Published in The Express Tribune, April 8th,  2016.

E-Publications

Most Read

COMMENTS

Replying to X

Comments are moderated and generally will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive.

For more information, please see our Comments FAQ