LAHORE - An anti-terrorism court was moved on Monday by the sister of unlucky Farzana, tortured to death by her family, to permit a visit to her father in custody.
Khalida, the petitioner, submitted to the court that 70-year-old Azeem might be suffering from mental illness due to police ‘treatment’. Denying the involvement of her father in the heinous crime, she claimed that he was falsely implicated and pleaded for having a meeting with him.
On the other hand, a trial in session court was convened over the alleged involvement of Iqbal, central character of the case, in the brutal killing. Judge Abdul Qayyum heard the versions of investigators and applicants and directed them to come up with further arguments on next hearing today (Tuesday).
It was brought to the knowledge of the court that Iqbal was also involved in several other crimes like honour killing of his ex. Khalida’s counsel stated that Iqbal, along with his accomplices, was directly a part of such brutality. Whereas, no FIR has been registered against him.
He insisted that Iqbal had already been declared a proclaimed offender in the case, being heard in the LHC, for which the deceased was taken forcibly to give statement. Farzana, 25, was killed on May 27, at Fane Road adjacent to the city’s high court on her way to give a statement in court about her relationship. As she was about to enter the court, a mob of more than two dozen people attacked her with bricks and stones, leaving her dead on the spot.
Reply on Jain Temples sought
Expressing dismay on the attitude of Punjab Chief Secretary for not giving time on the matter of rehabilitation and restoration of deserted Jain temples in the province, the Lahore High Court has sought reply with affidavits by June 17.
On Monday, as proceeding started, the petitioner-Barrister Jawaid Iqbal Jaafri told that the Chief Secretary (CS) Punjab did not give him time to discuss the issue of deserted Jain temples in the province. He said that he reached the CS office but the CS along with other officers avoided him and left. The petitioner said the CS violated court orders which is contempt of court.