The Sindh High Court (SHC) rejects a request for an urgent hearing of appeals against Anmol Pinky’s acquittal.
A division bench heard the matter concerning three narcotics cases registered in Karachi.
The appeals were filed by the Prosecutor General Sindh against the trial court’s acquittal decision.
The prosecution requested more time to submit police files linked to the cases. The court accepted the request.
The hearing was then adjourned for an indefinite period.
The prosecution challenged the trial court’s decision to acquit Anmol Pinky. It argued that the acquittal of co-accused did not clear her allegations.
Prosecutors also claimed that delays resulted from Anmol’s alleged absence from proceedings.
The prosecution further informed the court about other drug-related cases against Anmol. It urged the SHC to overturn the trial court’s decision.
The latest proceedings follow a Karachi court ruling from August. The Additional District and Sessions Court South acquitted Anmol in three cases.
The three cases were registered at Gizri Police Station. They were filed in 2020, 2021 and 2022.
Anmol had previously been declared an absconder in the three cases. Her lawyer later filed separate pleas seeking acquittal.
Defence Arguments in Anmol Pinky Cases
During the earlier proceedings, Anmol’s defence presented arguments against the prosecution’s case.
Her lawyer said the accused was nominated based on statements from co-accused. Those co-accused were later acquitted in 2024.
The defence argued that their acquittal weakened the prosecution’s case against Anmol.
The lawyer maintained that there was insufficient evidence to secure a conviction. The trial court subsequently accepted the acquittal pleas.
The court observed that the prosecution had failed to present sufficient evidence against Anmol. It therefore acquitted her in all three cases.
Prosecution Challenges Acquittal
The Prosecutor General Sindh later challenged the three acquittals before the SHC.
The prosecution asked the high court to set aside the trial court’s decisions. It argued that the acquittals required further examination.
The appeals also raised concerns about the circumstances surrounding the trial court’s decisions.
According to the prosecution, the trial court had announced the acquittals shortly after proceedings began. It argued that prosecutors should have received additional time to respond.
The SHC has now rejects the request for an urgent hearing. However, the court allowed the prosecution additional time to submit relevant police records.
The matter has therefore been adjourned without a fixed date.
The latest development does not overturn Anmol Pinky’s earlier acquittal. The prosecution’s appeals against the three decisions remain pending.
Anmol also faces proceedings in other cases. A Counter-Terrorism Department charge sheet previously reported more than a dozen cases against her.
The rejects decision on the urgent hearing request does not determine the final outcome of the prosecution’s appeals.
The high court will consider the appeals after the required case records are submitted.
In other news read more about: Court Raises Concerns Over Investigation in Case of Anmol Pinky
