Omar Ayub, Zartaj, 22 PTI workers granted bail in different cases
smartcybers786@gmail.com 
This combo shows Opposition leader in the National Assembly Omar Ayub(left) and PTI leader Zartaj Gul. — Instagram@Zartaj Gul Wazir/APP/File
#Omar #Ayub #Zartaj #PTI #workers #granted #bail #cases
ISLAMABAD: Opposition Leader Omar Ayub in the National Assembly, Pakistan Tehreek-A-Nisf (PTI) leader Zartaj Gul and 22 party workers were granted bail in various cases on Thursday.
Court Anti -Terrorism Court Judge Tahir Abbas Sopra granted interim bail to the opposition leader in the National Assembly Omar Ayub in two cases, which is registered against him in the Sangani rally case.
During the hearing on the bail pleas before the arrest, Omar Ayub appeared in court with his lawyers.
The court approved Omar Ayub’s pre -arrest bail plea in two cases against the bonds against each Rs 5,000.
Also, the Anti -Terrorism Court No. 1 court, headed by Duty Judge Tahir Abbas Sopra, granted interim bail to PTI leader Zartaj Gul in two cases, registered during the Sangjani rally for protests and vandalism, and stopped the police from arresting him.
During the hearing, due to the absence of Anti -Terrorism Court Judge Abul Hahakatan Zulkarnin, Zartj Gul appeared with his lawyers with court duty judge Tahir Abbas Sopra and a bail plea was filed before the arrest.
The court granted interim bail to Zartaj Gul in two cases, in which each of the bonds worth Rs 5,000 was heard in two cases and adjourned the hearing.
In addition, the court of Additional District and Sessions Judge Amar Zia on Thursday granted bail to 15 Pakistan Tehreek-A-Nisf (PTI) workers in a case registered against the parties against the November 26 protest on Thursday.
PTI lawyer Babar Aun, and other lawyers – Sardar Bashk, Murtaza Tory and Amna Ali appeared in court on behalf of the accused. After the arguments were completed, the court ordered the bail of all the accused against a bond of Rs 20,000, each.
The accused includes opposition leader Omar Ayub’s bodyguard, kick, driver and others.
A case was registered against the Pakistan Tehreek -e -Insaf activists at the Ramna police station, while civil judge Ahmed Shahzad Gondal rejected bail pleas.
Later, the accused filed an appeal against the decision to reject the bail plea.
Meanwhile, the court of Additional District and Sessions Judge Mohammad Afzal Majoka granted bail to seven Pakistan Tehreek-e-Justice workers in a case registered against the party’s November 26, and ordered their release.
During the hearing of appeals against the rejecting bail pleas after the arrest, lawyers Sardar Bashk, Murtaza Tory and Amna Ali appeared in court on behalf of the accused. After the parties’ arguments were completed, the court approved the bail of seven workers in exchange for bonds worth Rs 50,000.
A case was registered against PTI workers at Ramna police station. Earlier, PTI workers’ bail pleas were rejected by Civil Judge Ahmad Shahzad Gondal. The accused had filed an appeal against his decision to reject his bail pleas.
Meanwhile, Amjad Ali Shah, a special court anti -terrorism judge in Rawalpindi, issued a contempt of court notice to lawyer Bina Shahid for criticizing the court on social media.
The notice was issued after the prosecution request, and the lawyer has been asked to submit an explanation by March 8.
A prosecution petition filed under Section 37 of the Anti-Terrorism Act (ATA) states that an accused in several cases related to Bina Shahid-Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) representing Aamir Khan Salar-made uncertain comments about the court on his Twitter account.
The accused has been involved in the police station Hassar Attock since last year in the police station Sadar Hassan Abdul, the cases number 637 and 640 and the cases are included in No. 896 and 897. After arrest for these cases, bail applications are scheduled for hearing on March 8.
In addition, the prosecution’s request for cancellation of the accused in Case No. 1862 at the police station Nasir Abad is still under hearing.
Prosecutors argued that Bina Shahid’s social media posts wrongly presented the facts of the case, thus scandalizing the court and insulted under section 37 ATA.
In response, the court on March 8 formally sought the lawyer’s response to dealing with the allegations.
