Karachi — The suspect involved in the tragic Karsaz road accident has filed a challenge against a judicial magistrate’s decision to dismiss her bail petition in a related drug case. The challenge was made in the sessions court on Monday, with the suspect’s lawyer arguing that crucial evidence was overlooked in the magistrate’s ruling.
The Karsaz accident occurred on August 19 when the suspect’s luxury vehicle collided with multiple cars near the Pakistan Maritime Museum. The crash resulted in the deaths of Aamna Arif, 26, and her father, Imran Arif, 60. Several others were injured, with one in critical condition. The suspect, who sustained a head injury, was treated at Jinnah Postgraduate Medical Centre (JPMC) where her blood and urine were tested.
A separate case was filed against the suspect after methamphetamine, also known as crystal meth, was detected in her blood and urine samples. The police confirmed that the findings led to the addition of a drug-related charge in the case. Despite the serious implications of drug use, the suspect was granted bail earlier.
On September 6, the families of the accident victims submitted an affidavit to the court expressing their forgiveness of the suspect. They stated that the accident was not intentional and, in the interest of Allah’s mercy, they had no objection to granting her bail. This document was presented in court by Imran Arif’s heirs, including his son Usama Arif, his wife, and a daughter.
The additional district and sessions judge east granted the suspect bail against a surety bond of Rs100,000. The bail was also extended to Danish Iqbal, the husband of the suspect, in exchange for a Rs50,000 bond. The court received the no-objection certificates (NOCs) from the deceased’s heirs and noted that the dispute between the injured parties and the suspect had been resolved.
The suspect’s lawyer highlighted that the accused had been undergoing treatment for mental health issues since August 2005 and held a valid UK driving licence, which was recognized in Pakistan for six months. The lawyer also emphasized the affidavit from the victims’ families, which confirmed their pardon and lack of objection to bail.
In challenging the bail dismissal, the suspect’s lawyer argued that the judicial magistrate had not considered significant evidence related to the drug case. The counsel asserted that this evidence was crucial for a fair assessment of the bail petition.
The complainant’s lawyer and those representing the injured were present in court, where they submitted the NOCs and confirmed the settlement of disputes between the involved parties.
As the legal proceedings continue, the sessions court will review the arguments presented and determine the future course of the case. The challenge to the magistrate’s decision underscores the complexities of the legal system in addressing both criminal and drug-related charges, especially when personal reconciliations and settlements are involved.
