close
Thursday October 24, 2024

Imran’s focal person isn’t in agencies’ custody, IHC informed

Ministry of Defence representative informed court that Panjotha was not in custody of intelligence agencies

By APP
October 24, 2024
The Islamabad High Court (IHC) building in Islamabad. — APP/File
The Islamabad High Court (IHC) building in Islamabad. — APP/File

ISLAMABAD: The Islamabad High Court (IHC) on Wednesday directed Attorney General (AG) Mansoor Usman Awan to consult with lawyers Ali Bukhari and Faisal Chaudhry in the case of missing Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) focal person, Intizar Panjotha, as investigations continue into his whereabouts.

IHC Chief Justice Aamer Farooq heard the petition for the recovery of Intizar Panjotha, a lawyer and focal person for PTI founder chairman Imran Khan, who has been missing for 15 days.

During the hearing, the court directed the attorney general to consult with lawyers Ali Bukhari and Faisal Chaudhry before setting a date for the next hearing.

The Ministry of Defence representative informed the court that Panjotha was not in the custody of intelligence agencies.

The attorney general assured the court that he would review the matter and provide updates.

Faisal Chaudhry, representing the petitioner, appeared before the court.

During the hearing, the IHC CJ remarked that it was possible for a person’s phone to be in a different location from where they physically are, noting that Panjotha’s phone could be in one city while he might be in another.

The Inspector General (IG) Islamabad informed the court that CCTV footage from Toll Plaza had been reviewed, but no useful information was found.

The court then asked whether it was possible to trace from which cell tower Barrister Saif had been contacted.

The IG responded that even if there was no call made, data from mobile phone signals, known as Pulse data, had been collected and sent for analysis.

Chief Justice Farooq remarked that each time the police were contacted, they said they were still tracing the case.

The court directed the AG to provide a concrete solution. The AG told the court that he was actively looking into the case and was in contact with relevant authorities.

Meanwhile, the court adjourned the case.