RAWALPINDI: An Anti-Terrorism Court (ATC) on Thursday confiscated surety bonds and cancelled bail of the incarcerated Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) founding chairman Imran Khan’s sister Aleema Khan in a case registered against her in connection with the November 26 protest.
ATC Judge Amjad Ali Shah ordered the confiscation of Aleema Khan’s surety bonds worth Rs two million each, while issuing a contempt of court notice in the case registered against her at Sadiqabad Police Station, as the accused and her legal team arrived after the hearing concluded.
The same court, during the previous hearing, had issued a final warning to Aleema Khan, declaring that she or her counsel failed to appear before it, the court will not only cancel her bail but also appoint a state counsel for her defence, in addition to initiating proceedings against her sureties.
The court noted that the case had been called twice, but neither the accused nor her counsel appeared on time.
The court accepted the prosecution’s request to confiscate the Rs two million surety bonds and issued notices to both guarantors for recovery of the amount. The court further issued a contempt notice under Section 37 of the Anti-Terrorism Act (ATA) for failure to deposit the Rs 80,000 fine.
After the case was already adjourned, Aleema Khan appeared in court and requested permission to speak. She stated that she had openly admitted giving a media statement regarding the PTI founding chairman Imran Khan’s peaceful protest call, adding, “If I am already saying this myself, then what is the need for presenting witnesses?”
Prosecutor Syed Zaheer Shah immediately urged the court to place her statement on record, stating that the accused was making a confessional statement inside the courtroom, which concludes the matter. However, defence counsel Faisal Malik objected, arguing that her statement should not be recorded. The prosecutor responded by questioning why her statement should be excluded.
Aleema Khan asked, “Why should I not speak? If they want to send me to jail, then why are they wasting time?”
The prosecutor argued that the court’s decision had already been announced and that any further hearing had no legal standing, except for recording witness statements. The court observed that there was no legal justification to reopen a matter already decided and thus maintained its previous order.
The defence moved an application to mark attendance, upon which the court issued a notice to the prosecution.
The court adjourned the hearing of the case until 15th December.
Copyright Business Recorder, 2025
Comments
Comments are closed for this article.