June 16, 2006	Friday	Jumadi-ul-Awwal 19, 1427

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

PESHAWAR, June 15: The Peshawar High Court on Wednesday directed the deputy attorney general to ascertain from the Inter Service Intelligence whereabouts of a former PAF serviceman who had been picked by two ISI officials 15 months ago.

A two-judge bench comprising Justice Qaim Jan Khan and Justice Dost Muhammad Khan was hearing a writ petition filed by Muhammad Sohail, brother of detainee Muhammad Zaheer, against his continuous detention of his brother by the ISI authorities. He is suspected of being member of a militant outfit and involved in an attempt on the life of President General Pervez Musharraf in Rawalpindi.

The detainee was arrested by police in injured condition on Dec 3, 2004 in connection with a bank robbery in Matta (Swat). He was admitted to the Combined Military Hospital Rawalpindi for treatment from where he was allegedly picked by ISI officials.

The bench also restrained a Swat anti-terrorism court from proceedings against Zaheer in absentia. It directed that the case should be fixed out of turn for further proceedings.

Advocate Siddique Haider Qureshi, appearing on behalf of the petitioner, contended that the superintendent Swat police had made repeated requests for custody of the accused but the ISI had not submitted a reply.

DAG Salahuddin Khan stated on behalf of the federation of Pakistan and the federal ministry of defence that he had contacted the local office of the ISI in Peshawar but the officials there had expressed ignorance about Zaheer.

Mr Qureshi stated that he had made the ISI officials in Swat, and not those in Peshawar, as respondents in his petition. He said that the SP Swat (Investigation), in one of his letters to the director of ISI in Swat, had even mentioned names of the officials who had taken the detainee away.

The DAG, however, pointed out that under Article 199(3) of the Constitution a writ petition was not maintainable when detainee belonged to the armed forces.

The counsel for petitioner contended that the ISI was not a part of armed forces and it had no authority to detain a person in such an arbitrary manner. He referred to a judgment of the Lahore High Court which maintained that the federation was accountable for the acts of armed forces.

The bench observed that they would ascertain as to where the detainee had been kept and in whose custody he was at present.

The respondents in the petition are: ISI’s director general, director/in-charge of ISI District Swat, Col Hameed and Maj Sikander of ISI, NWFP PPO, superintendent of police (investigation) Swat, judge anti-terrorism court, federal interior ministry, secretary ministry of defence, and government of NWFP through its home secretary.