ISLAMABAD: The Islamabad High Court (IHC) on Wednesday reserved its verdict on a petition filed by accused Umar Hayat who sought transfer of his trial from the Model Court, citing lack of confidence in the trial court proceedings.
Chief Justice Sardar Muhammad Sarfraz Dogar heard the petition which raised concerns over the conduct of the trial court judge in the high-profile TikToker Sania Yousaf murder case. The petitioner’s counsel, along with the state counsel and advocate Sardar Muhammad Qadir, representing the complainant, appeared before the court.
Upon inquiry by the court, the lawyer informed that a report had been submitted.
“What does the report say?” the chief justice asked. “The case is with the Model Court which will proceed expeditiously.” The counsel for Umar argued that the trial court’s conduct had been inappropriate. “We never sought adjournments. The court could have appointed a state counsel and allowed immediate cross-examination,” he submitted and alleged that the trial court used language against the counsel that could not be uttered in an open court. “We request that the previously-conducted cross-examination be set aside and we be granted the right to cross-examine witnesses afresh. We have no confidence in the trial court; the case should be transferred to any other court,” the counsel pleaded. In response, Qadir, counsel for the complainant, informed the court that 10 months had passed in the trial. “Primary witnesses have already recorded their statements. In six months, they have cross-examined only two witnesses,” he said. He noted that Justice Khadim Hussain Soomro’s court had previously issued a detailed judgment on the matter. “To this day, cross-examination has not been completed. The trial court is a Model Court and has extended them every possible facility,” the complainant’s counsel argued.
When the chief justice asked why the petitioner had approached the IHC, the counsel responded that they had come against the trial court’s behaviour and its decision to proceed in their absence. He said they had also filed an application before the trial court, which was dismissed.
“The trial court appointed a state counsel on the spot and ordered cross-examination within one hour. My counsel was unwell, at least one opportunity should have been granted,” he pleaded.
The complainant’s counsel countered that the accused had been given numerous opportunities but sought adjournments repeatedly, and had also raised objections against the trial judge.
The chief justice observed: “If you come here, you should inform that court as well. The counsel’s conduct is not clear. The court has no connection or bias with the other party. It is a Model Court, and there is also a Supreme Court judgment on the matter.” After hearing arguments from all parties, the court reserved its verdict.
