PESHAWAR, Sept 30: The Peshawar High Court on Friday observed that it would not allow law-enforcement agencies to turn the province into a police state.

A two-member bench comprising Justice Ijazul Hassan and Justice Fazalur Rehman dismissed a writ petition filed by the provincial government on behalf of the local police force seeking remand of 16 persons arrested a few days back on charges of attacking a police station.

Police had challenged the order of an anti-terrorism court after it refused to remand the 16 accused persons in their custody and instead sent them to prison.

The court ruled that putting an accused person under police custody was the discretion of the trial court and unless there were strong grounds of illegality committed by that court, the high court would not interfere.

The bench reprimanded the additional advocate general, Saeed Khan, and observed: “Don’t make this province like Punjab where the police routinely kill people in fake encounters.”

The bench observed that in Punjab the police often sprung prisoners out from jail and killed them after receiving money from their rivals. Justice Rehman questioned: “What do you want to do with these persons? You want to kill them in a fake encounter?”

Saeed Khan stated that on Sept 22 the officials of Hayatabad police station received a tip-off about the presence of some robbers in the area. He said that the policemen raided the spot and arrested two persons.

The same night some 50 to 60 persons attacked the police station and manhandled the staff, including the SHO. According to Mr Khan, the SHO asked for an additional force on arrival of which 14 persons were arrested. He stated that one of the attackers took away a AK-47 assault rifle and keys of a police vehicle.

Advocate Abdul Lateef Afridi appeared for the accused persons and argued that it was a fabricated case as the accused persons belonged to respectable families. He said the police had claimed that the AK_47 had been taken away by a person named Sardar Moazam. “When the police have specifically charged a person for a particular offence, why does it need to detain 16 more persons?” he asked.

The court asked the additional advocate general if newspaper accounts of a police raid on a house during a marriage ceremony were true. The court also wanted to know whether the accused persons had been arrested from the house.

Mr Afridi stated that two of the 16 men arrested were bridegrooms and they had been arrested from the house of the bride during the “mehndi” ceremony.

The bench observed that the police had alleged that only an AK-47 had been taken away and yet it wanted 10 days of physical remand of 16 persons.

The bench observed that it would only interfere if there was any illegality in the order of the subordinate court.