Adiala jail deputy superintendent’s detention: LHC directs police to make jail superintendent’s statement part of probe

Additional Attorney General Sajid Ilyas Bhatti presented the initial report of the Ministry of Defense in the court

By Khalid Iqbal
August 23, 2024
Police officials stand guard outside the Adiala Jail in Rawalpindi on October 23, 2023. — AFP

RAWALPINDI: The Lahore High Court (LHC) Rawalpindi Bench Thursday directed the CPO Rawalpindi in a petition filed against the detention of deputy superintendent of Adiala Jail to make the statement of the jail superintendent a part of investigation.

Advertisement

Justice Mohammad Raza Qureshi directed the police to inform the court about progress in the case on August 27.

On Thursday, the petitioner was present in the court along with her lawyer Iman Mazari.

CPO Rawalpindi, superintendent Adiala Jail, and SHO Police Station Saddar Baruni appeared in the court.

Additional Attorney General Sajid Ilyas Bhatti presented the initial report of the Ministry of Defense in the court, while the police presented a copy of the case to the court filed against the former deputy superintendent.

The judge was informed that a copy of the case had been provided to the petitioner’s lawyer on the court order.

The CPO submitted his affidavit again to the court after correction.

The superintendent told the police that he was fully cooperating with the police.

In her petition, the wife of the deputy superintendent said secret investigation agencies arrested her husband in the early morning of August 14 from their residence in the Officers Colony on the jail premises.

The petitioner visited the police station concerned the next day for case registration but the police neither gave her any information about her husband nor registered a case.

She said their residence was raided on the night of August 15 without a search warrant and all the devices were shut down and seized.

The deputy superintendent has been arrested on the charges of facilitating Imran Khan. The petition states that the fundamental constitutional rights of the petitioner and her husband have been violated and it was not known as to why and where her husband had been kept.

She feared that her husband would be subjected to mental and physical torture. According to the law, he was required to be produced before a competent court within 24 hours of detention, but it was not done.

Advertisement