PESHAWAR, Aug 10: The Peshawar High Court on Friday issued a notice to the Frontier Constabulary commandant over the sacking of a sepoy, asking him to explain his position on the matter in writing.

Jan Afzal had filed a writ petition with a bench comprising Justice Miftauddin Khan and Justice Shahjehan Khan Akhunzada challenging his removal from service after he survived a militant attack on an FC fort in Tank last year.

He said around 300 militants attacked the FC Fort in Mullazai area early on December 23, 2011.

The petitioner said a sepoy was killed and two injured in the attack, while 15 were kidnapped by militants.

He said he and seven other personnel, who survived the attack, were sacked over failure to repel militants.

According to him, militants surrounded the fort before attacking it using heavy and light weapons, including rockets and mortars.

Militants later killed the kidnapped personnel and threw their bodies by Thall-Mir Ali Road. They also released footage of the killings, saying FC personnel were shot dead to avenge the killing of militants in Khyber Agency.

FC authorities claim the eight personnel hid themselves inside the fort and didn’t repulse the attack.

Ziarat Khan Mohmand, lawyer for the petitioner, said removal of his client was illegal.

He said at the time of the attack, only a platoon of FC was deputed at the fort though at least two platoons were needed.

The lawyer said the petitioner along with other FC personnel tried in vain to counter the militant attack as militants outnumbered them.

Also in the day, the high court granted bail to a person charged with carrying an explosive device in a vehicle, which had fake registration number.

A single bench comprising Justice Asadullah Khan Chamkani accepted the petition of Mohammad Sherin for bail, observing that keeping in view the evidence on record, the petitioner was entitled to the concession of bail.

Mr Sherin was arrested by the officials of Gombat police station in Kohat on June 13, 2012.

Police claimed that when they stopped a suspected vehicle, they found out that the registration number of the vehicle was bogus. They also said they recovered an explosive device from the car.

The petitioner’s lawyer said his client was falsely implicated in the case.

He added that police had not sent the alleged explosive device for chemical examination and therefore, it could not be proved that the samewas an explosive device.

The lawyer also said the petitioner had nothing to do with the seized vehicle.