ISLAMABAD: The Islamabad High Court (IHC) on Friday disposed of a petition by Zakir Jaffer, father of Zahir Jaffer, challenging the trial court’s order to indict 12 accused in the case, after the petitioners’ counsel withdrew it.
Zakir Jaffer’s counsel Raja Rizwan Abbasi withdrew the petition upon which Justice Amir Farooq disposed of the plea. However, it is not clear why the petitioner withdrew his plea.
Zakir had been indicted by a trial court along with 11 others including Zahir Jaffer, Zahir’s mother Asmat Adamjee, their three household staff Iftikhar, Jan Mohammad and Jameel, Therapyworks CEO Tahir Zahoor and employees Amjad, Dilip Kumar, Abdul Haq, Wamiq and Samar Abbas.
All of the accused had pleaded not guilty to the charges. The plea stated that the court “abused its authority”. Zakir, Asmat Adamjee and Zahoor had challenged their indictment in the IHC under separate petitions.
In the indictment, the trial court had charged the 12 accused in the murder case for 15 offences. While the four charges were specific to the principal accused, Zahir only, the fifth charge was against his parents for allegedly concealing facts from the police.
SC rejects ‘conjecture’ on IHC’s two-month deadline
In a separate hearing on Friday, the Supreme Court (SC) rejected the contentions of Zahir Jaffer’s parents’ counsel against the Islamabad High Court (IHC)’s deadline to conclude the trial within eight weeks.
In a written order, authored by Justice Umar Ata Bandial, the court observed that the “Learned counsel for the petitioner has urged that the time period of eight weeks specified in the paragraph 14 of the impugned judgment dated 23.09.2021 “to conclude the trial expeditiously preferably within eight weeks from the framing of charge” deprives the petitioner of a fair opportunity to lead his defence. We do not agree with that submission which is conjectural and without reference to fact.”
“Needless to say that this concession of bail may be withdrawn if the petitioner misuses it in any manner, including causing a delay in the expeditious conclusion of the trial or influencing the prosecution witnesses,” the order added.
