12 April 2005	Tuesday	02 Rabi-ul-Awwal 1426

Please Visit our Sponsor (Ads open in separate window).

PESHAWAR, April 11: The Peshawar High Court on Monday sought comments from directors of two intelligence agencies and the political agent of Khyber Agency in a habeas corpus petition challenging alleged illegal detention of a boy for one year. The court’s two-member bench comprising Justice Ijaz Afzal and Justice Fazalur Rehman Khan ordered that the three respondents, the political agent and directors of Inter Services Intelligence and Intelligence Bureau, should file comments within a fortnight.

The petition was filed by Abdul Qudoos of Jamrud, stating that his brother Adnan Khan, who was a student of 10th class in the Government High School Jamrud, was arrested along with some other persons by the administration on suspicion of having links with Al Qaeda on Feb 12, 2004, and was later handed over to an intelligence agency.

The petitioner’s counsel Habibur Rehman Afridi argued that according to the available record, the detainee had been in the custody of an intelligence agency for more than a year.

He contended that continuous detention of the detainee was unconstitutional as he was neither tried nor produced before any court of law.

Earlier, a habeas corpus petition was filed by the petitioner before the high court which was dismissed as none of the respondents, including the intelligence agencies and the political administration, conceded that he had been arrested. However, the court had asked the petitioner that if he had any proof regarding the whereabouts of the detainee he could move the court again.

The petitioner, who had also filed an application before the tribal administration, received a reply from the tehsildar of Jamrud tehsil, in which it was mentioned that he had been arrested by the administration and handed over to an intelligence agency.

On the basis of that information, a fresh habeas corpus petition was filed by the petitioner, stating that now it was proved that the detainee was arrested by the administration.

Mr Afridi argued that the deputy attorney general and the additional advocate general had presented wrong information to the court in the earlier petition.