RAWALPINDI: Judge Amjad Ali Shah of Special Anti-Terrorism Court No. 1, Rawalpindi, has charged 498 accused, including Imran Khan and ex-foreign minister Shah Mehmood Qureshi, in connection with the GHQ attack during the violent protests on May 9.
The court adjourned the proceedings without any further action on Saturday.
The hearing of 12 separate cases, involving the encirclement of government properties and attacks on police officers and personnel, was also adjourned until October 9 without any progress. These cases include several high-profile incidents following the May 9 tragedy.
After the May 9 events, the Rawalpindi police had registered multiple cases: Case No. 708 at RA Bazar Police Station, Case No. 563 at City Police Station, Case No. 836 at Cantt Police Station, Case No. 759 at Race Course Police Station, Case No. 2106 at New Town Police Station, Case No. 2076 at Sadiqabad Police Station, Case No. 981 at Civil Line
Police Station, Case No. 914 at Waris Khan Police Station, Case No. 397 at Morgah Police Station, Case No. 744 at Sadar Wah Police Station, and Case No. 940 at Taxila Police Station.
Prominent figures named in these cases included Shireen Mazari, Zartaj Gul, Sadaqat Abbasi, Arif Abbasi, Colonel (retd) Shabbir Awan, Major (retd) Latasab Satti, and Chaudhry Javed Kausar.
Imran Khan was officially arrested in these cases on January 8.
It should be noted that the court has previously ordered the exclusion of the former chairman’s wife, Bushra Bibi, from these cases.
Court asked appellants to satisfy it on next hearing that how decision of single bench was not right
Petitioner’s lawyer informed court that parliament had passed 26th Constitutional Amendment
CM urged people to choose between resisting oppression and embracing freedom or continuing under shackles of slavery
Committee emphasised need for effective legislation to safeguard rights of parliamentarians
Muzammil Aslam highlighted need for 5,000 watersheds in KP, requiring an investment of Rs 115 billion
Justice Shahzad observed that with support of appellant, 85% power theft was witnessed in his locality