An Islamabad district and sessions court on Thursday rejected the post-arrest bail plea filed by Somia Asim, the wife of a civil judge, in a case pertaining to the alleged torture of an underage domestic worker in the capital.

The suspect was booked in the case after she was accused of severely torturing a teenage maid, who was moved to the Lahore General Hospital in critical condition on July 24.

According to the girl’s medico-legal certificate (MLC), she had “laceration on the head from the vertex, on the forehead, right side above the eyebrow, swollen upper lips, laceration under the upper lip on the right side, broken left incisor and left canine, a laceration on cheek, nose bleed, a laceration on the left side of vertex, multiple bruises on the lower leg, fracture on right forearm, swollen left and right eyelids, bruise on the right skull, a laceration on back, multiple bruises on back and attempt on strangulation”.

After showing reluctance, Islamabad police had registered a first information report (FIR) in the case on July 26 at the Humak police station in response to the complaint from the girl’s father, a labourer by profession.

Initially, the police booked the judge’s wife for criminal intimidation and wrongful confinement, without mentioning physical torture in the FIR. However, eight more sections — including attempted murder — were later added to the FIR.

Somia was arrested in the case on August 7 after an Islamabad district and sessions court rejected her pre-arrest bail application.

The suspect had then approached a local court in Islamabad via her lawyer and applied for post-arrest bail till the case’s final decision. The petition said the allegations against her in the FIR were “baseless, concocted and result of exaggerations”.

It maintained that Somia was “innocent” and never caused any of the alleged injuries, adding that she had always treated the maid well. It also alleged irregularities in the case investigation so far.

Today, Judicial Magistrate Shaista Kundi presided over the suspect’s post-arrest bail plea, wherein Somia had said the allegations against her were “baseless, concocted and [the] result of exaggerations”.

Lawyer Qazi Dastageer appeared as the counsel for the judge’s wife while Faisal Jutt was present as the victim’s counsel. Prosecutor Muhammad Waqas and the parents of the teenage girl were also present during the hearing.

After hearing the arguments of both lawyers and the prosecutor, Judge Kundi reserved the verdict, which she announced later.

The hearing

At the outset of the hearing, the power of attorney for a new counsel was submitted to the court by Jutt from the victim’s side.

Jutt informed the court that he needed more time to prepare his arguments for the case, to which the judge said, “No, [more] time is not needed. The arguments shall be presented today.”

When told to present the arguments, the suspect’s lawyer informed the court that he was submitting a plea “seeking a few documents”, which included the report of the girl’s medical exam conducted in Sargodha.

Dastageer said he read the medical report that was included in the case records, according to which more sections were registered against Somia.

Judge Kundi asked the lawyer when the girl was handed over to her parents, to which he replied that she was handed over at 8pm on July 23 at Skyway Station.

He noted that the girl reached the Sargodha District Headquarters Hospital at 3am the next morning. “The medical report from after reaching the hospital has not surfaced yet.”

The court then ordered Dastageer to read out the FIR of the case aloud in the courtroom.

Referring to the CCTV footage the suspect had presented before the special investigation team formed to probe the incident, the lawyer said that the “girl was handed over [to her parents] in good health”.

Dastageer argued that the teenager “sat at the bus stand for two-and-a-half hours and walked while drinking water herself”. “The girl came out of the car after opening its door herself,” he added.

“If the girl was infected with maggots, then where did those maggots go when she reached the bus stand?” Somia’s lawyer asked.

The video was then played in the courtroom. According to the prosecutor, the two-and-half-minute footage had been sent for forensics.

Dastageer continued his arguments: “The child is meeting her mother after seven months [but] she does not even check the child.” To this, the judge remarked, “Who checks immediately? First, the child is received.”

Judge Kundi then asked the teenager’s mother, Shamim, if her daughter wears a scarf, to which the mother answered, “No, my daughter does not wear a scarf. The purpose of hiding the face was to hide the injuries.”

The judge further asked the mother about the conversation that was held in the car dropping off the girl. “We have to serve justice. Injustice should not be done with anyone,” the judge observed.

Judge Kundi also asked Shamim if she sat for 10 minutes inside the car that dropped her daughter off at the bus stand. To this, the mother replied in the affirmative and said they talked about her daughter’s work.

Shamim said, “I was told that the child does not do work. When I asked her why she didn’t work, she remained silent. The driver even threatened that we are [influential] people [so] I got scared immediately.”

Here, the prosecutor said, “At least do not concoct arguments by yourself.”

The judge then remarked, “I will bring everything on the record. There will only be justice here.”

The suspect’s lawyer then said that according to the girl, “the torture was inflicted at 5pm and she was handed over at the bus station at 8pm”.

When judge Kundi asked Dastageer about “who inflicted the wounds”, he responded, “Let’s not go into this story. I do not want to take anyone’s name. Nothing was written about how old the injuries are.”

The counsel further said that according to the complaint, the hospital in Sargodha immediately sent the girl to Lahore. He recalled that Section 324, which pertains to attempted murder, was added to the FIR six days later.

Recalling that Somia was accused of “keeping the child under suffocating conditions for seven months”, the lawyer said, “It is not known who the mother kept talking to on the phone for two-and-a-half hours.”

“According to the video, the child’s mother kept talking on her phone for two and a half consecutive hours. If someone’s child is injured to this extent, how can they remain on the phone continuously?” Dastageer asked.

He then requested that he be provided with a copy of the medical report from Sargodha.

When the judge again asked who was responsible for inflicting the injuries on the teenager, Somia’s lawyer said that women in villages “often eat Multani mitti”.

He claimed that the girl was “used to eating sand” and she “ate the soil that was added to plants”. “Due to this, the child got rashes but was handed over to her parents in good health,” Dastageer insisted.

Here, the judge asked him if there was any evidence present for his argument, adding, “Do not say anything you do not have the evidence for. Give legal references — what does the law say?”

The lawyer then said, “Eating sand has not been mentioned in the case. This is being portrayed as poison.” He asked, “How can a woman inflict such torture on a child? How can anyone even think to do so?”

He claimed he had pictures of the child “enjoying with the civil judge’s family at Torkham border”. When asked if he had the photos with him, Dastageer said he did not have them at the moment but would bring them.

The counsel continued: “Somia Asim is the wife of a civil judge. Never mind, here, Somia Asim is the accused.”

“The child was not employed by Somia Asim,” the suspect’s lawyer asserted. To this, judge Kundi noted, “Two days ago, Somia Asim told the court that she kept giving money to the child.”

The lawyer then said that Zunairah, a woman residing in the United States, “used to send aid, which was given to the child’s parents”. He added that Rs10,000 were also given by the suspect as the girl’s parents did not have a home“.

The judge then asked Dastageer why the child was kept at their home, to which he replied, “They met at a wedding. It was decided that they would take three girls each and provide aid.”

Judge Kundi noted, “It was said that the child was enrolled in a school.” The lawyer responded, “The child is overage — is 16 years old. She was not enrolled in school. A Qari sahib (reciter) also used to come home to teach her the Holy Quran.”

Upon being asked by the judge if there were any documents that stated that the teenager was being given aid, Dastageer answered, “I do not have any documents. It is an exemplary case of charity work.”

The judge observed, “You are repeatedly saying verbal things.”

When she asked why Rs50,000 were sent, Dastageer claimed, “It is a straightforward matter. Somia Asim was blackmailed.”

Judge Kundi raised the question, “How was a judge blackmailed?”, to which the counsel lamented that “even a judge is not able to get justice”.

“Why? Did we not do justice two days ago?” the judge asked. When the lawyer said that the matter was of Somia and Zunairah, the judge remarked, “It is not the matter of Somia Asim or Zunairah.”

She went on to ask if there was any welfare agreement, to which Dastageer answered, “The documents for welfare work are not present. There were only verbal statements.”

At this point during the hearing, the prosecutor started presenting his arguments.

“Everything said by the defending lawyer is verbal. He made assumptions,” Waqas said. He asserted, “The child was at the civil judge’s home and this was even acknowledged.”

Here, Judge Kundi said, “The child was at the civil judge’s house but the injuries have not been admitted to yet.”

The prosecutor recalled that the hospital staff were the ones to call the police and not the girl’s parents.

Waqas added that the statement of a “neutral person” — a bus driver — was also present on the record.

When inquired about the statement by the judge, he quoted the bus driver as saying that the girl was injured and was “taken away in a car by a woman and two men”.

The prosecutor highlighted according to a tuition teacher who has been visiting the judge’s house for the past four years, he taught “other children in the house” but not the affected girl.

Waqas noted that the teenager’s statement was also included in the case record, which he said was the “biggest record”.

He asserted that the video presented by the defending lawyer should be sent for forensics. “The child’s condition is clear in the CCTV footage. She is lying down with difficulty,” he said as he urged the court to reject the suspect’s bail plea.

The court then directed him to submit copies of various court orders while reserving the verdict in the case.