LAHORE: Police arrested PTI leaders Haji Muhammad Fayyaz and Saeed Lodhi in the Jinnah House attack case and produced them before an anti-terrorism court, which reserved its decision on the police request.
Anti-Terrorism Court Judge Manzar Ali Gul heard the case. Advocate Yousaf Wain appeared in court on behalf of the accused.
Counsel for the accused requested the court to discharge both accused from the case, taking the position that these accused were not previously wanted in the Jinnah House attack case.
On the other hand, the investigating officer told the court that Haji Muhammad Fayyaz and Saeed Lodhi were involved in the Jinnah House attack.
At this, the court reserved its decision on the police request.
The Jinnah House case relates to the attack on the Lahore Corps Commander’s residence — historically known as Jinnah House — during the disturbances of May 9, 2023. The building, one of the city’s notable colonial-era structures, was stormed and set on fire, and the episode became the single most prominent incident in the prosecutions that followed.
Cases arising from that day have been tried under the Anti-Terrorism Act, which channels them to designated anti-terrorism courts rather than ordinary sessions courts. That designation carries procedural consequences: it affects the forum for bail, the timelines prescribed for trial and the range of sentences available on conviction.
The hearing comes amid reports that several PTI leaders face warrant action, while other high-profile political cases, including the Pervaiz Elahi kickbacks reference, continue before accountability courts.
The application moved by defence counsel is a discharge request — a plea that the accused be removed from the case at the pre-trial stage on the ground that no material connects them to the offence. It is distinct from bail, which leaves the accused on the case record while releasing them from custody pending trial.
The core of the defence argument as presented in court is that neither man was named or wanted in the case earlier, raising the question of what fresh material led to their inclusion now. The investigating officer’s position is that both are involved in the attack.
The reserved order will determine whether the two remain part of the prosecution or are removed from the proceedings altogether. More than three years after the events of May 9, the addition of previously unnamed accused to existing case files remains one of the most contested features of the litigation, with defence counsel across multiple cases arguing that late nomination without corresponding new evidence is impermissible.
Leave a Reply