LHC orders to produce Hassan Niazi by Aug 18

The Lahore High Court (LHC) directed authorities to produce Barrister Hassan Khan Niazi, nephew of PTI chief Imran Khan, before the court by August 18 in regard to a plea seeking his recovery and an inquiry against officials over his 'illegal detention'.

Justice Sultan Tanvir Ahmad was hearing a plea filed by Hafeezullah Khan Niazi, father of the detainee, who in his petition submitted to the court that the abduction and detention of the Niazi is against the statutory provisions as embedded in Section 61 of Cr.P.C which states that the person arrested should be produced within 24 hours of his arrest before the concerned magistrate. But in this case, the detenue was not yet been produced before the competent court of law which is the sheer violation of the fundamental rights of the detenue.

“Neither the Constitution nor any law, allows the police to abduct and detain a citizen merely for the reason that his abduction be used to pressurise some other person. Each person is accountable for his own alleged crimes only”, the petitioner added up in the petition.

The petitioner made the inspector general police (IGP) Punjab, capital city police officer (CCPO), station house officer (SHO) Sarwar police station and the state as respondents and requested the court to direct the aforementioned to immediately release the Niazi, declare this detention as illegal and direct an inquiry against those officials who are responsible for this illegal abduction and detention.

The petitioner told in his petition that on August 13 approximately at 11:30 pm the Punjab police raided the house at Abbottabad where Barrister Hassan Khan Niazi was abducted without any reason and then the police officials took him to an unknown location. The police neither gave any reason for his abduction nor produce any search or arrest warrants. He submitted that he has information that the Niazi has been kept under the custody of Respondent SHO Sarwar Road.

The petitioner submitted to the court that the respondents did not adhere to the due process of law as stipulated in the very concept of a “fair trial” and “due process” guaranteed by Article 10-A of the Constitution. "Pertinently, the right to a fair trial is a cardinal requirement of the rule of law."