LAHORE - An anti-terrorism court (ATC) Thursday granted fresh interim bail to Prime Minister Imran Khan’s nephew Barrister Hassan Niazi in the PIC attack case, reports say.

Judge Arshad Hussain Bhutta also approved bails of nine other lawyers in the PIC attack case until Jan 6.

At the outset of the hearing, the judge was irked by his appearing late despite being a lawyer and cancelled the premier’s nephew’s interim bail.

Niazi offered his unconditional apology over his act and filed a fresh application seeking bail in the case.

The judge granted bail to the applicants, including Niazi, subject to submission of a surety bond worth Rs100,000. Abdul Rehman Jatt, Chaudhry Muzamil, Syed Zain, Usama, Umar Gouri, Rana Adeel, Sikandar Siddique, Abdul Javed Malik, and Abdul Majid were the others whose bail pleas were accepted by the court.

Another 9 lawyers get bail in PIC attack case

A group of more than 200 lawyers, who had an ongoing ‘tussle’ with the doctors of the PIC  had stormed the hospital last week, vandalised property and damaged dozens of vehicles. They also set ablaze a police van during their assault. At least 52 lawyers were arrested after the attack and presented before the court. Two FIRs were registered against over 250 lawyers who attacked Punjab Institute of Cardiology (PIC) in Lahore.

Rana Sana appears

before NAB

PML-N MNA and party’s Punjab President Rana Sanaullah Khan on Thursday appeared before the NAB Lahore and was handed a comprehensive questionnaire about the investigation going on against him. He was also asked questions about his income and assets.The PML-N legislator said he would come up with answers to the questions in the near future. However, he told reporters after the investigation session that his assets were the same he had already declared before the Election Commission of Pakistan. Answering a question about the NAB’s power to summon him despite the promulgation of a presidential ordinance, the former Punjab law minister said the opposition parties wanted it enforced through an enactment, not an ordinance.

He alleged that matters agreed with the opposition had not been included in the ordinance and only such things had been incorporated in it that could benefit the ruling party people. He made it clear that with opposition’s support the government would not be able to have the ordinance passed into an enactment. He alleged that the government was victimizing the opposition leaders and no government could function on the basis of vendetta.