Noor Mukadam murder case: IHC hears bail plea of ​​Zahir Jaffer’s parents for the third consecutive day

Islamabad High Court on Friday continued hearing the bail plea of ​​Zahir Jaffer’s parents in the Noor Mukadam murder case, that resumed for the third consecutive day.

The lawyer of Zakir Jaffer and Asmat Adamjee, parents of main suspect Zahir Jaffer in Noor Mukadam’s murder case, a day earlier had urged that the prosecution claim that his clients had prior knowledge of the murder had no grounds.

The counsel of Zahir Jaffer’s parents informed the court that the police challan said that the prime suspect was in contact with his parents, arguing that the challan also said that his clients sent the Therapy Works employees to dispose of Noor’s body, but the statement was hypothetical until there was concrete evidence.

The counsel said that according to the prosecution, Zahir’s parents sent Therapy Works employees to the crime scene after the murder but they were also declared suspects.

On Friday, the confessional statement of Zahir Jaffer was read out in court today.

The statement was read out by lawyer Khawaja Harris, who is representing Zahir’s parents, Zakir Jaffer and Ismat Adamjee, during a hearing on their bail application which had resumed for the third consecutive day by the Islamabad High Court.

According to the statement, Zahir Jaffar had informed his father on the phone that he was getting rid of Noor Mukadam by killing her. However, this sentence is not included in the preliminary statement of Zahir Jaffar.

Khawaja Haris stated that abetment in the crime was also done under the planning.

“The abetment is not a crime even though the murder could have been averted if the accused’s father knew about it,” he pleaded.

He said that the trial should be televised like in America.

Justice Aamer Farooq observed that rules yet have to be formed with regard to televise in Pakistan.

“Anti-terrorism sections are applied in a murder case committed one and a half years ago,” Justice Aamer Farooq ruled.

He argued that the statement recorded by the suspect in police custody has no legal status and that the statement of the suspect must be recorded before a magistrate.

Meanwhile, the plaintiff’s counsel, Shah Khawar, told the court that he would take more than an hour for his arguments.

To this, Justice Farooq asked Harris if he would like to give counterarguments.

Harris replied that he would.

The court then directed the plaintiff’s lawyer to give his arguments on September 21.