Family seeks access to PTI's Hammad

Plea in LHC accuses SHO of refusing to receive application

LAHORE:

The mother and wife of PTI leader Hammad Azhar have approached the Lahore High Court (LHC) with a plea seeking permission for them and his counsel to communicate with him during his physical remand.

The applicants challenged an Anti-Terrorism Court (ATC) order directing them to approach the police for the access.

The petition filed by Ishrat Azhar and Mariam Hammad contended that the ATC had misinterpreted Rule 26.28 of the Police Rules, 1934, by directing the petitioners to approach the station house officer (SHO) for a meeting with Azhar.

They argued that the rule provides alternative, rather than cumulative, avenues for obtaining permission to communicate with a prisoner in police custody.

The ATC had granted 21 days' physical remand of Azhar on September 7. The petitioners had submitted an application before the ATC on September 10, seeking permission to meet him and requesting access for his lawyers as well.

The ATC disposed of their application, directing them to approach the SHO, of Sarwar Road.

The petition argued that meaningful access to legal counsel is particularly important in police custody.

It stated that after being directed by the ATC to approach the SHO, the petitioners had submitted an application but he had allegedly refused to receive it.

They requested the LHC to set aside the ATC's September 17 order and direct the authorities to provide Hammad Azhar's immediate family members reasonable and regular access to him during his custody.

Fake video case

A judicial magistrate on Saturday reserved his verdict on a contempt of court petition filed by Punjab Information Minister Azma Zahid Bukhari against the counsel for PTI activist Falak Javed in a case relating to the alleged circulation of a fake video.

Judicial Magistrate Naeem Wattoo also reserved his decision on Bukhari's application seeking exemption from personal appearance in the case.

During the hearing, Bukhari's counsel argued that Falak Javed's lawyer Mian Ali Ashfaq had tried to pressure the court in the previous hearing to issue arrest warrants for the complainant.

He contended that attempting to exert pressure on the court amounted to contempt.

Mian Ashfaq opposed the petition, arguing that Bukhari had failed to appear for cross-examination despite court orders.

He said the law provided for issuance of warrants if a complainant failed to appear despite directions.

He maintained that the contempt petition was an attempt to delay proceedings, claiming that the case had been adjourned 14 times because of the complainant.

Bukhari's counsel said courts never came under pressure.

The counsel also objected to social media commentary on the proceedings. He added that some social media activists were present in the court to support the defence lawyer.

The counsel questioned the absence of Falak Javed, pointing out that although she had been in jail for a long period, she was on bail in the present case.

The defence lawyer objected to what he termed personal attacks against him.

Bukhari's counsel also submitted an application seeking exemption from her appearance, saying another petition filed by her was pending before the LHC and regular proceedings on it were scheduled from Monday. He requested that further proceedings in the trial be taken up after the high court decided the matter.

Mian Ashfaq said he would argue on the exemption after completing his submissions on the contempt petition.

At one point, the defence counsel asked the court to reject Bukhari's exemption plea and issue her arrest warrants.

The magistrate urged both sides to focus on their legal arguments and avoid creating hurdles in the trial.

The court reserved its decisions on both the contempt petition and application for exemption from personal appearance.