KARACHI: An antiterrorism court on Thursday granted time to the complainant’s lawyers till July 4, as a last chance, for arguments on suspended SSP Rao Anwar’s application for bail in a case pertaining to extrajudicial killing of Naqeebullah Mehsud and three others in an alleged ‘staged’ encounter.

The ATC-II judge also cautioned that in case the complainant’s lawyers failed to turn up on next date of hearing the bail plea would be decided in accordance with the law.

The suspended SSP and his 11 detained subordinates with around 15 absconding officers are accused of abducting an aspiring model, Naseemullah, better known as Naqeebullah Mehsud, for ransom and killing him with three other detainees by dubbing them “militants” in a staged encounter in a Malir locality on Jan 13.

Ex-SSP enjoys exemption from being handcuffed

On Thursday, the undertrial police officer was brought to the court in an armoured personnel carrier escorted by several police mobile vans and produced in court amid tight security around the building of the Municipal Training and Research Institute (MTRI), which houses the ATCs, in Clifton.

All the detained policemen were handcuffed, except Rao Anwar, whom the court had previously ordered to be provided better facilities, including exemption from being handcuffed, during detention.

The judge was set to hear arguments on an application of Rao Anwar seeking bail in connection with the main case pertaining to the murder of the aspiring model with others registered at the Sachal police station. However, lawyers representing the complainant were not present.

Taking notice of their absence, the judge fixed the matter on July 4, as a last chance, to hear arguments from the complainant’s side. In case of their failure to appear on the date, the judge cautioned that the bail plea would be decided in accordance with the law.

In the application, it was argued that an inquiry committed constituted by the inspector general of police on Jan 25, comprising the Additional IG of the Counter-Terrorism Department Sanaullah Abbasi and others, had assigned the responsibility of the alleged encounter to officials of the Shah Latif Town police station, who had admittedly taken part in the encounter.

Defence counsel Advocate Amir Mansoob Qureshi alleged that the FIR was solely registered against his client, adding that the inquiry committee had obtained the technical analysis report of the applicant’s mobile phone number, which showed his presence on the scene of the incident or within its vicinity after the alleged encounter.

The lawyer maintained that after the former SSP voluntarily surrendered to the Supreme Court, the proceedings pending against him were dropped and a joint investigation team was formed.

“The JIT itself is self-explanatory as it is neither inculpatory nor exculpatory, as it is based on a report recorded under Section 168 of the CrPC wherein the applicant has not been marked as black, grey or white,” he said, adding that the JIT was an inadmissible document.

The lawyer alleged that the murder case against his client was a “case of no evidence” but a product of professional rivalry.

He said the two eyewitnesses — Mohammad Qasim Daud Khan and Hazrat Ali — had not implicated the suspended SSP in their statements recorded by a magistrate as well as by police.

The defence counsel added that the statement of an alleged eyewitness, who was let off after allegedly being kidnapped with Naqeebullah Mehsud, was recorded after a delay of 17 days, which also needed further inquiry.

The lawyer maintained that the applicant was entitled to bail, especially after the SC had ordered that the subordinate courts dealing with the present matter had to decide it without being influenced by the orders of the apex court and/or taking into consideration the orders of the Supreme Court, and pleaded for grant of post-arrest bail.

Published in Dawn, June 15th, 2018