ISLAMABAD - The Supreme Court on Friday adjourned for two weeks the case of five civilians allegedly involved in the attack on army camp near Chenab Bridge.

A two-member bench comprising Justice Anwar Zaheer Jamali and Justice Sheikh Azmat Saeed heard the application of Sajida Perveen, the mother of Ehsan Azeem.

Field General Court Martial, Sialkot, on February 12, 2014, had awarded Azeem and four others death sentence, which was confirmed by the Chief of Army Staff.

Laeeq Swati, representing the accused Ehsan Azeem, Asif Idrees, Umer Nadeem, Amar Yousaf and Kamran Aslam, argued before the bench that right of fair trial was not provided to them in the military court.

He informed Ehsan Azeem’s mother filed a writ petition in the Lahore High Court, which issued notices to the respondents including the federation through Secretary Ministry of Defence, Judge Advocate General, GHQ and Superintendent District Jail, Multan.

He further told that on 9th July 2012 an FIR was filed with the Sadar police Gujarat regarding the attack on military camp, established near Chenab River. Resultantly, seven military persons and one police constable were martyred and five others injured. In the FIR charges under section 7 of Anti-Terrorism Act (ATA) read with 302/324/353/148/149 were registered.

The military court declaring them subject of Pakistan Army Act under section 2(1)(d) of the Act held them “guilty of the charge and awarded death sentence.” He the charge-sheet was not provided to them and they came to about death warrant from the jail superintendent.

He said before the High Court the army official informed in their para-wise comments that the petitioner’s son Ehsan Azeem and others were involved in terrorist activities.

The Lahore High Court on 22nd December 2014, accepting their appeal, had suspended the death warrant. However, the federation challenged the suspension. Upon that the LHC restored the sentence on 24th December 2014. Sajida Bibi then approached the Supreme Court against the LHC order.

The Supreme Court Friday hearing the appeal asked the petitioner’s counsel to assist the court whether the case could be heard by Supreme Court as the application had been filed under Article 199 of the Constitution. The counsel sought some time. The bench accepting his prayer adjourned the hearing for two weeks.