KARACHI: Hearing put off in JWP leader’s detention case
By Our Staff Reporter
KARACHI, May 25: A Sindh High Court division bench adjourned on Thursday further hearing of a petition seeking recovery of a Jamhoori Watan Party leader to June 5 for statements by the interior and defence ministries.
Federal government standing counsel Mahmood Alam Rizvi informed the bench, comprising Chief Justice Sabihuddin Ahmed and Justice Mrs Qaiser Iqbal, that Pakistan Army’s Karachi-based Corps-V has categorically denied that any official or agency working under it arrested or held the alleged detainee, Salim Baloch, senior vice-president of JWP, in custody. The Pakistan Rangers had submitted their denial on the previous date.
Advocate Noor Naz Agha said Mr Baloch, who is also vice-president of the ARD, might have been confined by some federal agency not functioning under Corps-V. According to petitioner Abdullah Baloch, brother of the detainee, he was picked up by plainclothes policemen while buying a newspaper from an old city stall. He was whisked away in a car followed by a police mobile. He had not been seen since and his whereabouts were not known.
The federal attorney said he was making inquiries about two other JWP officials, Rauf Sasoli and Saeed Brohi, and required time to seek a comprehensive reply from the ministries of interior and defence. Allowing his request, the bench adjourned the hearing to June 5.
Justice Mohammad Moosa K. Leghari, meanwhile, admitted Mirza Maqsood Beg to bail in the sum of Rs 50,000 and issued a notice to the prosecution for June 6. The accused said in his application that he purchased a flat in Own Apartments, Sindh-Baloch Co-operative Housing Society, Gulistan-i-Jauhar, through a general power of attorney executed by the owner. However, when he went to the apartment to take possession, he found it occupied. The unlawful occupant got a criminal case registered against him in what was essentially a civil dispute.
consulate affidavits: A Pakistani citizen was neither confined in US consulate general premises in Karachi nor he was maltreated by consulate staff on March 22, 2005, regional security officials of US consulate submitted in their affidavits filed before the Sindh High Court on Thursday, add agencies.
SHC's division bench, comprising Chief Justice Sabihuddin Ahmed and Justice Mrs Qaiser Iqbal, was hearing a petition filed by a Pakistani businessman, Mirza Aslam Baig, who sought registration of case against US officials alleging they maltreated him on Sharea Faisal near Awami Markaz on March 22, 2005, without any reason when he was on his way to office.
The petitioner alleged that the US officials forcibly took him and his friend to the US Consulate-General building in Karachi and illegally confined there for hours and interrogated.
Filing affidavits, regional security officer US Consulate General Thomas V Gallagher and former acting regional security officer Vincent O Martinez, now deputed at US consulate in Ottawa, Canada, clearly denied the petitioner’s charge and submitted that at no point the petitioner and his friend were brought into consulate premises, nor they were maltreated by the consulate staff.
They said that the vehicle was previously observed following consulate vehicle four times in a week in March 2005. They said on March 22 the vehicle was seen again near consulate vehicles and the same was reported to police escort of consulate vehicles, which intercepted the vehicle of the petitioner and took him and his friend to police post outside of the US consulate and later they were taken to police station.
Petitioner's counsel Akhtar A Channar sought time for further arguments and filing a rejoinder. The court fixed next hearing for date to be fixed by the office.
notices issueD: A division bench of High Court of Sindh (SHC), comprising Chief Justice Sabihuddin Ahmed and Justice Mrs Qasier Iqbal, on Thursday admitted a constitutional petition filed by the Pakistan Film Exhibitors Association and issued notices to the respondents.
The petitioners stated that specific permission for screening of selected few films made in India amounted to discrimination. They moved the court, soliciting orders for allowing import and screening of films from across the border.
The bench, after hearing the counsel for the petitioner, admitted it for regular hearing and also ordered the office to fix before the bench in the third week of August.
