PESHAWAR: An anti-terrorism court here has accepted plea of Pakistan Broadcasting Corporation (PBC) and ordered forensic examination of the relevant videos and facial recognition of the accused through National Database and Registration Authority (Nadra) in the ongoing trial into the ransacking and torching of the building of Radio Pakistan in Peshawar in May 2023.

Judge Wali Mohammad Khan ordered that the USB, containing video records, in sealed condition be handed over to the investigation officer of the case to ascertain its genuineness vis-a-vis identification of offenders through Nadra records and submit a report before the next hearing on Jan 10, 2026.

The court referred to different provisions of Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) and superior court judgements and ordered acceptance of the application of the private complainant (PBC).

The PBC’s station director had submitted the application to the ATC, requesting for examination of the videos through the Punjab Forensic Science Agency Lahore for its genuineness, the presence and participation of individuals and facial recognition by NADRA for identification of the accused in the occurrence, which took place during protests triggered by arrest of former Prime Minister and founder of Pakistan Tehreek-i-Insaf, Imran Khan.

Accepts PBC’s petition for facial recognition of accused through Nadra

The ATC is conducting the trial, with 75 accused, including some present and former lawmakers, being indicted on June 3, 2025, on multiple counts. The accused had pleaded not guilty.

The accused facing trial include provincial minister Meena Khan Afridi, MNA Asif Khan, MPAs Fazal Ilahi Khan and Arbab Waseem, who left PTI and joined PTI-Parliamentarian, and former MPAs Arbab Jehandad, Fida Gul and Wajid Khan.

The application was filed through senior counsel Shabbir Hussain Gigyani, who contended that certain viral videos of the incident were on record, showing noted personalities actively participate in the crime. Also, abettors, conspirators and instigators were visible along with numerous unidentified people.

He contended that various cameras recorded the scenes of commission of the offences and Section 94 of the CrPC provided for production of documents or other things for corroboration.

The lawyer said that different videos in respect of the offences had been secured in a USB, which would highlight the real culprits if it was subjected to forensic examination through PFSA Lahore and Nadra.

He argued that for arrival at the right conclusion and securing the ends of justice, it was necessary to conduct examination of the videos through PFSA and Nadra for its forensic examination as well as facial recognition of the actual culprits.

However, the defence counsel insisted that investigation had already been concluded, while material evidence had been recorded during trial.

He sought rejection of application, saying it wasn’t covered by the law for being filed belatedly.

Meanwhile, the ATC also turned down an application of the defence counsel against the appointment of the private counsel by the PBC.

He contended that the state prosecutor, representing the complainant, was an officer of the government.

The defence counsel added that engaging private counsel for governmental departments in the presence of the prosecutor was illegal.

Advocate Gigyani opposed the defence plea, arguing that the appointed prosecutor was a provincial employee and representing the provincial government, while the complainant in the case was the federal government.

He contended that all accused in the case were related to the ruling party in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa (Pakistan Tehreek-i-Insaf), while some were members of the provincial cabinet and the national and provincial assemblies.

The lawyer said there were compelling reasons for the engagement of private counsel, including public interests and the fragile position of the prosecutor, who might be subjected to hardships if not acted as directed.

The ATC observed that the provincial government appointed the prosecutor in that court, while Radio Pakistan was complainant in the case, which was subject to the federal government.

“Fair trial is the mandate of the law. Some of the accused in this case are either members of parliament or cabinet, or members of the ruling party in the province of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa,” the judge ruled.

The FIR of the incident was registered at East Cantonment police station on May 10, 2023, on the complaint of the then SHO, Arbab Naeem Haider, under different provisions of the Pakistan Penal Code and Anti-Terrorism Act.

The complainant insisted said that after breaking the main gate of the Radio Pakistan building, the protesters torched the building and the vehicles parked there, spreading fear, terror and insecurity.

He added that the police had “tactfully” arrested 20 mobsters, while the remaining 200-300 miscreants escaped. Several others were held afterward.

Published in Dawn, December 16th, 2025