May 08, 2008	Thursday	Jamadi-ul-Awwal 2, 1429

PESHAWAR, May 7: The Peshawar High Court on Wednesday sought comments from the Peshawar Central Prison’s superintendent in connection with the detention of six Bangladeshi nationals arrested at Torkham on Pak-Afghan border.

A two-member bench comprising Justice Raj Muhammad Khan and Justice Ziauddin Khattak fixed May 21 for next hearing and directed the deputy advocate general, Sardar Ali Raza, to receive comments from the superintendent so as to ascertain the present situation.

The bench was hearing a habeas corpus petition filed by the six detainees -- Madu Mian, Ali Haider, Shah Mohabbat, Shamim Ahmad, Aqas Ali and Hafiz Ali -- stating that they were sentenced by an assistant political agent and they had already undergone that prison term.

The bench observed that last time they had sought comments from the provincial government. It was added that in the comments the government claimed that the detainees were arrested on charges of illegal entry into Pakistan.

The government stated that the six detainees were sentenced by the tribal administration to two months simple imprisonment with fine of Rs2,000 each. It was added that after undergoing their prison term they would be deported to Bangladesh.

The court asked the DAG to ascertain that why the detainees had not been deported if they had completed their prison terms.

The petitioners stated that they were arrested by the tribal administration in Jan 2008 at Torkham on charges of illegal entry into Pakistan.

The APA tried them and sentenced them under the Foreigners Act on Feb 25 to two-month imprisonment with fine of Rs2,000.

The petitioners claimed that they were deceived by a travelling agent. They stated that the said agent received money from them on the pretext of taking them to Europe. They alleged that the agent brought them to Afghanistan and later on disappeared at the Pak-Afghan border.

They stated that they were not familiar with the area and they erroneously entered Pakistan. They stated that they had already completed their prison term and had now been in illegal detention.

Their counsel contended that their detention was unconstitutional. He added that presently they had not been charged in any other case, therefore they should be released.