SHC seeks home secretary's reply on declaring Rao Anwar's house sub-jail

Court reserves verdict on plea to transfer Shahid Hamid murder case to another court

KARACHI: On a plea against declaring the residence of SSP Rao Anwar as sub-jail, the Sindh High Court (SHC) sought on Friday written reply from the home secretary by June 20.

The SHC was hearing the plea of Naqeeubullah Mehsud's father Muhammad Khan against declaring SSP Anwar's house as sub-jail. The bench expressed its displeasure over the absence of Home Secretary Shahid Pervaiz Qazi and issued orders for him to attend the hearing, after which the secretary showed up.

The SHC asked the home secretary about the authority on whose order SSP Anwar's house was declared as a sub-jail. The secretary requested the court to grant him time to give the answer, upon which the SHC directed him to file reply by June 20.

The court should be informed houses of how many other suspects had been declared sub-jails, the SHC chief justice remarked.



In his plea, the petitioner had contended that declaring SSP Anwar's house as sub-jail was illegal. Khan had maintained that no notification had been issued in this regard. He had also protested against providing facilities to the accused. The petitioner requested the SHC to shift SSP Anwar to jail as he was involved in the killings of innocent people.

Shahid Hamid murder case

Meanwhile, the SHC reserved its verdict on a plea requesting the transfer of the murder case of Karachi Electricity Supply Company managing director Shahid Hamid.

The plea was filed by Shahid's wife Shehnaz Hamid. The court was requested to transfer the case from the anti-terrorism special court 17 to the court no 5. The petitioner maintained that the court no 5 was well acquainted with the case as it had heard the case before and even sentenced the prime suspect, Saulat Mirza, to death.

Mirza had murdered Hamid allegedly on the orders of Muttahida Qaumi Movement founder Altaf Hussain.



Later, two more suspects, Ghufran Mehmood and Minhaj Qazi, were arrested in the case. A lawyer representing the accused argued that there was no reason for transferring the case to another court. After hearing arguments from both the sides, the SHC reserved its verdict.