PESHAWAR, Feb 20: About 80 underage suspects arrested in connection with last week’s riots were granted bail by two juvenile courts here on Monday. Both the courts accepted their bail applications and ordered that the suspects should be released after furnishing two sureties of Rs50,000 each.

One of the courts, presided over by judicial magistrate Tufail Khan, heard applications of 60 detainees while the other, presided over by magistrate Malik Amjid Raheem, heard applications of 20 other alleged offenders.

These suspects had been arrested by officials of different police stations including Hayatbad, West Cant, East Cant, University Town, Gulbahar and Kabuli area.

They were arrested after mobs in different areas went on a rampage on Feb 15 and damaged public and private property, including buses and corporate offices of South Korean Daewoo Company, Norwegian Telenor mobile phone company, US-franchise KFC fast food restaurant, Egypt-based Mobilink cell phone company, and different departmental and garments stores.

Scores of lawyers appeared on behalf of the applicants and contended that the applicants were innocent and falsely implicated in these cases. They stated that the actual culprits had escaped after the rampage and later the police had arrested innocent citizens.

The counsels argued that on that day it was a free-for-all affair and at certain places the police had deliberately given them a free hand to destroy public and private property. They said that in such situations it was difficult to differentiate between innocent persons and real culprits.

The applicants’ counsel argued that there was no evidence to connect their clients with the commission of the offence. They said that none of the owners of the damaged properties had deposed against any of the applicants.

They added that in some of the cases school going children were arrested while returning back from their respective schools. They added that even boys playing cricket were not spared by the police.

These applicants were initially charged under the Anti Terrorism Act and produced before the anti-terrorism court, but the presiding officer referred them to the juvenile courts observing that he had no powers to deal with the cases of juvenile suspects.