The petition maintained that the cases registered against Haleem were based on mala fide intent and meant to suppress his voice in the Sindh Assembly. Therefore, his bail pleas should be approved.
According to the police, both the cases against Haleem were registered in Memon Goth police station and include section of the Anti-Terrorism Act.
Also read: ATC rejects Haleem’s bail pleas
Earlier, an anti-terrorism court had rejected the bail pleas.
Haleem, who had been shifted to a hospital from the jail in the recent days, was again moved to the prison on March 3, after he casted his vote in the Senate elections at the provincial assembly, where he is the opposition leader.
Speaking to the media, Sindh Prisons Adviser Aijaz Jakhrani maintained that Haleem was neither ill, nor attacked in jail, as had been claimed earlier by the opposition leader.
The adviser assured that Haleem was being provided complete security in jail and had been kept away from "dangerous prisoners".
Separately, the court sought replies from the Ministry of Interior and other officials regarding the recovery of missing persons.
A two-member bench, comprising Justice Naimatullah Phalphoto and Justice Abdul Mubeen Lakho, heard the petition for the recovery of missing persons.
The court was furious over the non-recovery of a missing person, Furqan.
It sought replies from the Ministry of Interior and relevant officials on the plea, besides seeking reports on the matter from law enforcement agencies.
The court also expressed displeasure over the non-recovery of Waqar, who has been missing since 2015, and sought progress reports from the Ministry of Interior and agencies.
In yet another case of missing persons, the bench wrapped up the petition after a report was submitted to it on the return of two missing persons.
The counsel of the petitioner maintained that Maqbool Ahmed and Taufeeq Ahmed, who had been missing for several months, had returned to their homes.
The counsel stated that the SHO Sachal was behind the abduction of Maqbool Ahmed, and therefore an order for taking action against him be issued.
At that, Justice Phulpoto remarked that they should approach the relevant authority to take action against the SHO.
Published in The Express Tribune, March 5th, 2021.
Comments are moderated and generally will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive.
For more information, please see our Comments FAQ