close
Wednesday November 27, 2024

SHC tells govt to justify activist’s detention under MPO

By Jamal Khurshid
May 03, 2020

The Sindh High Court (SHC) has directed the advocate general of the province and the DIG police South to place on record the material justifying the detention of a proscribed organisation's activist under the Maintenance of Public Order, who was recently released in the Pakistan Industrial Development Corporation car bombing case.

The direction came on a petition of Aziza Naeem, who challenged the detention of her son-in-law Abdul Hameed Bugti under the MPO for 90 days.

The petitioner submitted that her son-in-law had been incarcerated in prison for his alleged involvement in the PIDC car bombing case for last 14 years before he was exonerated by the SHC on April 9 due to lack of evidence. She submitted that the prison authorities refused to release the detainee and detained him under the MPO.

The SSP prisons informed the court that the detainee had been detained under the MPO for 90 days and placed a copy of the notification in this regard. The petitioner's counsel challenged the detention of the detainee and sought his release as no case had been registered against him at any court of law.

A division bench headed by Justice Mohammad Karim Khan Agha directed the advocate general of Sindh and the DIG police South to submit details along with material on the basis of which the name of the detainee was placed under the MPO and justify the detention.

The court directed the home department to ensure that the aforesaid material was handed over to the advocate general on the basis of which the detention order was issued. It observed that in case the material was not placed, both the IGP and the home secretary would have to appear to explain the position on May 6.

The SHC on April 9 had dismissed appeals of two convicts and upheld their death sentences in the PIDC car bombing case; however, it had set aside the death sentence of the third convict, Abdul Hameed Bugti, and acquitted him of charges as no evidence was found against him.

Abdul Aziz Baloch, Mangla Khan and Abdul Hameed Bugti, stated to be activists of an anti-state organisation, were sentenced to death by an anti terrorism court in Karachi, which found them guilty of the car bombing outside the PIDC (Pakistan Industrial Development Corporation) building on November 15, 2005.

Four people were killed and 21 others were wounded after a bomb exploded in a car (ACB-490) parked outside the PIDC building during morning rush hour on November 15, 2005.

The explosion also caused damage to a fast-food outlet, bank branches on the ground floor and offices on upper floors, besides several parked vehicles.

According to the prosecution, absconding co-accused Sardar Brahimdakh Bugti, grandson of the late Nawab Akbar Khan Bugti, chieftain and central leader Jamhori Watan Party, had given the task to Aziz Khan, Mengla Khan and Abdul Hameed for executing the bomb explosion outside the Pakistan Petroleum Limited office as the PPL were not giving jobs to their people.

Appeal dismissed

The Sindh High Court has dismissed the appeal of a convict and upheld his life imprisonment in a narcotics case.

Mohammad Yousuf was sentenced to life imprisonment by the sessions court of Jamshoro on October 19, 2016, having found him guilty in smuggling 300 kilograms of charas. According to the prosecution, the appellant was arrested by the Jamshoro police and recovered 300 kilograms of charas from his vehicle on September 19, 2012.

The appellant's counsel submitted that his client was falsely implicated in the case and there were contradiction in the statements of the witnesses, which could not be relied upon to convict him in the offence. The deputy prosecutor general supported the trial court judgment and submitted that the prosecution successfully proved its charges against the appellant who was arrested while smuggling the charas in a vehicle carrying a fake government number plate.

The court after hearing the arguments of the case observed that the prosecution proved its case against appellant beyond any reasonable doubt, and dismissed the appeal.