Nov 26th case: ATC warns Aleema of bail cancellation over repeated absence

RAWALPINDI: An Anti-Terrorism Court (ATC) on Monday took notice of the repeated absence of the incarcerated Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) founding chairman Imran Khan’s sister Aleema Khan in a November 26 case and warned that her failure to appear in the next hearing would lead to cancellation of her bail.

ATC Judge Amjad Ali Shah, hearing the case, issued a final warning to Aleema Khan, declaring that if the accused or her counsel fails to appear at the next hearing, 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 in a case registered at Sadiqabad Police Station.

The court adjourned the hearing of the case until 11 December and summoned witnesses to record their statements.

During the hearing, Special Prosecutor Zaheer Shah and prosecution witnesses—along with the case property—were present in court.

However, Aleema Khan and her counsel did not appear. A plea for exemption from appearance was submitted on behalf of Aleema Khan, stating that the accused could not attend court due to unavoidable reasons, while her lawyer, being a member of the Punjab Bar Council (PBC), was occupied in Lahore due to PBC elections.

The prosecution strongly opposed the request, noting that this was the 16th hearing of the case and that the prosecution witnesses had been appearing regularly along with the case property. They further pointed out that a fine previously imposed on the accused by the court had still not been deposited, alleging that the accused and her counsel were deliberately delaying the trial.

The court was also informed that a petition seeking cancellation of the accused’s bail had been filed on October 17, which remains pending, and that a notice had already been issued to her in this regard.

Citing the Supreme Court judgment authored by Justice Qazi Faez Isa in the Shehbaz Akmal case concerning lawyers’ strikes, the prosecution argued that the apex court had expressed strong displeasure over such practices and held that a lawyer is responsible for safeguarding the interests of their client; if unable to do so, they should return their fee.

The prosecution urged the court to direct the accused to either appoint another lawyer or accept state-provided counsel to ensure the trial proceeds without delay.

Copyright Business Recorder, 2025