Three convicted in playwright's 'honey trap' case
ATC Judge Arshad Javed delivered the verdict after concluding detailed arguments from both the prosecution and defence.
The convicts - Amna Urooj, Zeeshan Qayyum and Mamnoon Haider - were found guilty of luring Qamar to a private residence, secretly recording him, and orchestrating his abduction for financial gain.
However, the court acquitted five other accused - Hassan Shah, Tanveer Ahmad, Qaisar Abbas, Rasheed Ahmad, and another unnamed individual - citing insufficient evidence to support the charges against them.
The case dates back to July 2023, when Qamar was reportedly invited to Urooj's apartment in Lahore under the guise of discussing a professional collaboration.
Once there, he was abducted, held for ransom, and released after several days. A police complaint filed by Qamar on July 21 led to a high-profile investigation and multiple arrests.
According to the First Information Report (FIR), the kidnappers looted Qamar's mobile phone, wristwatch, cash, and forcefully withdrew Rs250,000 from his ATM account.
He further stated that the abductors blindfolded him and abandoned him in a deserted area before fleeing.
Prosecutors termed the act a premeditated and financially motivated scheme, urging the court to consider maximum punishment. However, the court handed down a seven-year sentence to each of the three proven guilty.
The case had drawn significant public and media attention due to Qamar's celebrity status and the audacity of the crime.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Express Tribune
2 days ago
- Express Tribune
'Why only carriers face music in narcotics case?'
The Supreme Court has raised serious concerns over the systemic failure of law enforcement in tackling the narcotics trade beyond its most vulnerable participants, observing that prosecutions overwhelmingly target only drug "carriers" – mostly from underprivileged backgrounds – while major perpetrators remain untouched. The observations came in a 17-page written judgment authored by Justice Athar Minallah, in which the court acquitted two individuals who had earlier been sentenced to life imprisonment in a narcotics case. The ruling was issued by a three-member bench headed by Justice Minallah, and comprising Justice Irfan Saadat Khan and Justice Malik Shahzad Ahmad Khan. "There are several law-enforcement agencies vested with powers to apprehend and prosecute those who are involved in the crimes relating to narcotic drugs, including a special agency, the Anti-Narcotics Force established under the Act of 1997," the verdict notes. The judgment calls into question the effectiveness of these institutions, particularly when viewed against the scale and pervasiveness of the drug menace. "The people of Pakistan have to bear the financial burden for maintaining these law enforcement agencies entrusted with the onerous task to eradicate the menace of narcotic drugs from the society. Have they achieved their designated goal? The answer is an emphatic 'No'," it reads. The court further lamented the growing spread of narcotics across the country, stating: "The evil of narcotic drugs has spread throughout the country and it cannot be disputed that it has reached the educational institutions where they are freely accessible." The bench pointed out that even in the few cases where arrests are made, prosecutions often do not result in convictions, raising further doubts about the integrity and professionalism of investigative processes. "The law enforcement agencies have not gone beyond arresting carriers and then, in many cases, failing to prove the guilt even to their extent. If the society has to be freed from the evil of narcotic drugs then each law enforcement agency has to perform effectively and in the most professional manner." "They have to be held accountable for their omissions and lapses committed during the investigations or while prosecuting a case. The future generations cannot be exposed to the menace of narcotic drugs merely because the several law enforcement agencies entrusted with the onerous duty to free the society from this evil fail to perform effectively or are seen as complicit. "The buck stops with the Federal and Provincial Governments, as the case may be, because they are ultimately responsible for the overall and general supervision of the law enforcement agencies. The responsibility does not end with the Executive branch of the State because the Judicial branch is also equally responsible in ensuring that the trial is conducted fairly and that a just decision is reached. "This case also shows that the trial court had failed in exercising its powers vested under the law. "We, therefore, expect that the Government of Sindh which, according to section 5 (1) of the Act of 2009, exercises general superintendence over the Prosecution Service and is responsible for ensuring achievement of the objectives of the Act of 2009, will take effective steps so that cases involving crimes relating to narcotic substances are dealt with effectively and in accordance with the duties and responsibilities of the investigators and Prosecutors. "The Prosecutor General Sindh is expected to examine this case and take appropriate action so that the omissions observed in this case are not repeated. The prosecutor General is further advised to consider issuing guidelines in exercise of its functions under section 9-A (1) of the Act of 2009 for the Prosecutors and officers responsible for investigations relating to effective and efficient prosecution. The High Court is also expected to consider laying down a policy of regular training of judicial officers relating to conducting of criminal trials. The order also said that this case has emanated from the province of Sindh where the Provincial Assembly of Sindh has promulgated and enacted the Sindh Criminal Prosecution Service (Constitution Functions and Powers) Act 2009. "The Criminal Prosecution Service of Sindh has been established under this legislation. The Act of 2009 sets out the powers, functions and responsibilities of the prosecution service in conducting prosecutions on behalf of the Government. "The administration of this service vests in the Government. Section 9 (1) explicitly provides that the Prosecutors shall be responsible for the conducting of prosecutions on behalf of the Government. The Prosecutor General is empowered under section 9-A (1) to issue general guidelines for the Prosecutors or officers responsible for investigation for effective and efficient prosecution.
Express Tribune
3 days ago
- Express Tribune
May 9: IHC overturns sentence of 4 PTI workers
Listen to article The Islamabad High Court (IHC) on Thursday acquitted four Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) workers who had been convicted in connection with the May 9 riots. The convicts had challenged their sentences in the IHC. Earlier, the ATC, headed by Judge Tahir Abbas Sipra, had sentenced Sohail Khan, Mohammad Akram, Shahzeb and Mira Khan to 10 years in prison on May 30 for their alleged involvement in attacking a police station in Islamabad's Ramna area. The convicts had been charged under Pakistan Penal Code (PPC) Sections 148 (rioting, armed with deadly weapon), 149 (unlawful assembly), 186 (obstructing official duty), 188 (disobeying order of a public servant), 324 (attempted murder), 353 (assault on public servants), 436 (arson) and 440 (mischief); Section 144 of CrPC; and Section 7 of the Anti-Terrorism Act (ATA), 1997. They were sentenced to 10 years' imprisonment under Section 7 ATA, five years under Section 324 of PPC, four under Section 436, two each under sections 353 and 148. In total, 11 PTI members, including MNA Abdul Latif, were sentenced, but only four were arrested while the remaining suspects are still at large. May 9, 2023, refers to the day when former prime minister and PTI founding chairman Imran Khan was taken into custody by paramilitary Rangers from the Islamabad High Court premises on charges of corruption. The PTI founder's arrest sparked countrywide protests, during which demonstrators allegedly belonging to the former ruling party vandalized state-owned buildings and military installations, including the Lahore Corps Commander's House, commonly known as Jinnah House. Following the protests, several PTI leaders and workers were arrested on various charges, including setting government infrastructure on fire. On Thursday, a divisional bench of IHC comprising Justice Azam Khan and Justice Khadim Hussain Somroo overturned the verdict of ATC, declaring the sentences void after hearing arguments from both sides. PTI lawyers, including Babar Awan, Sardar Masroof and Amna Ali, represented the appellants in the IHC. Awan argued that out of nine prosecution witnesses, only one — ASI Muhammad Sharif — identified the accused. He said no injuries were reported despite allegations of gunfire. "Punish for crimes proven, but do not turn the system into a joke," he told the court. Justice Somroo questioned the prosecution about the evidence to which the prosecutor responded that evidence existed but requested additional time to present it. The court, however, rejected this plea, observing that all arguments had already been heard. The bench noted that no medico-legal certificates (MLCs) or injured persons were presented and questioned the basis for convictions without proving the accused were present at the crime scene. The IHC observed that none of the witnesses had stated in their testimonies that the accused were present at the site. The bench further questioned whether the court was now expected to convict solely on the basis of an identification parade.
Business Recorder
3 days ago
- Business Recorder
Ramna police station attack case: IHC acquits four PTI workers
ISLAMABAD: The Islamabad High Court (IHC) accepting appeals of four Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) supporters, against their sentence awarded in Ramna police station attack, arson and siege case of May 9, ordered to release them. A division bench of Justice Khadim Hussain Soomro and Justice Azam Khan on Thursday heard the appeals against 10-year imprisonment sentence of convict Sohail Khan and others. During the hearing, lawyers Babar Awan, Sardar Masroof, Advocate Amina Ali and others appeared on behalf of the petitioners. PTI founder Imran Khan's sister, Aleema Khan, was also present in court. She met with the workers and other party supporters, expressing strong solidarity with those accused in the May 9 incidents. After hearing the arguments, the IHC bench acquitted the four PTI workers previously convicted in the May 9 Ramna police station attack case. The bench ordered to release them after the prosecution was unable to prove their presence at the scene of the protest based on the witnesses' accounts. The convicts had been charged under Pakistan Penal Code (PPC) Sections 148 (rioting, armed with deadly weapon), 149 (unlawful assembly), 186 (obstructing official duty), 188 (disobeying order of a public servant), 324 (attempted murder), 353 (assault on public servants), 436 (arson) and 440 (mischief); Section 144 of CrPC; and Section 7 of the Anti-Terrorism Act (ATA), 1997. They were sentenced to 10 years imprisonment under Section 7 ATA, five years under Section 324 of PPC, four under Section 436, two each under Sections 353 and 148. Additionally, the convicts were sentenced to four years in prison and fined Rs40,000 for burning a motorcycle under Section 426 (punishment for mischief); and a separate sentence of four years in prison and a fine of Rs40,000 under Section 440 (mischief committed after preparation made for causing death or hurt) for vandalising a police station. A sentence of three-month imprisonment was imposed for interfering in the work of the police under Section 186 (obstructing public servant in discharge of public functions), one month for violating Section 144 (joining unlawful assembly armed with a deadly weapon), and two years for committing a crime in a group under Section 149 (every member of unlawful assembly guilty of an offence committed in prosecution of common object). At the onset of the proceedings, Babar Awan argued that out of nine prosecution witnesses, only one witness Assistant Sub-Inspector Muhammad Sharif was able to identify the accused. He contended that while it was alleged that the protesters had resorted to firing, no one was injured. Copyright Business Recorder, 2025
