Court seeks FIA's record in Khadija Shah case

Designer was arrested for the third time after securing bail twice

LAHORE:

The Additional District and Sessions Judge on Monday summoned the Federal Investigation Agency’s record against designer Khadija Shah in an FIR related to the May 9 riots.

This came in response to Khadija's plea for a post-arrest bail in response to an FIR registered against her for "controversial tweets" on May 9. Her counsel argued that she was not involved in the cases linked to the May 9 riots and requested the court to grant her bail.

Consequently, the judge directed FIA to submit its records by November 7.

Earlier this week, Khadija filed a plea in the Lahore High Court, seeking contempt proceedings against high-ranking police officials following her arrest in a third case.

This was based on a report submitted earlier in response to her plea seeking details of the FIRs registered against her. The police initially mentioned two FIRs, in which, she was granted bail by the division bench of the LHC. However, she was later arrested in a third FIR.

On November 3, the Inspector General Police (IGP) Punjab, Dr Usman Anwar, failed to satisfy the court with repeated queries. The court questioned her arrest, lack of police interrogation while in custody, and a guarantee to avoid further arrests.

The court then directed IGP to submit a comprehensive written reply by November 10.

Khadija’s bail in previous cases

On October 18, LHC granted post-arrest bail to Khadija in two cases involving the Askari Tower fire and the Jinnah House attack.

The bench granted bails to the petitioner Khadija Shah after it was noted that during the investigation, the Investigation Officer (IO) had not recovered any material to connect the petitioner with the incident of fire or attacks on the properties mentioned.

In the Askari Tower case, it was noted that the complainant had not specifically named the witnesses who disclosed the petitioner Khadija’s name and role during the protest. Prosecution witnesses in their statement did not state a single word that they informed the complainant about the involvement of the petitioner in the instant case.