Court dismisses report on missing ex-jailer

Orders CPO to appear before bench today or face action


Qaiser Shirazi August 22, 2024
Lahore High Court building. FILE: PHOTO

print-news
RAWALPINDI:

The Lahore High Court's Rawalpindi Bench Wednesday expressed displeasure over the non-appearance of the Rawalpindi City Police Officer (CPO) during a hearing regarding the recovery petition of missing former Adial jailer.

Ex-Deputy Superintendent Jail Muhammad Akram went missing after leaving with suspected officials. The court issued a stern warning that if the CPO does not appear by Thursday, August 22, he will face suspension.

Justice Raza Qureshi criticised the inaction of the jail administration and the police, stating that the institutions and officers must honour their uniforms. Following the court's orders, Saddar Beruni police station registered a case of alleged kidnapping of the ex-deputy superintendent and presented the FIR in court.

The petitioner's lawyer, Iman Mazari, challenged the police's handling of the case, arguing that Muhammad Akram was abducted from his residence on August 14, yet the police recorded the incident as occurring on August 19 in the FIR. The court took note of this discrepancy and adjourned the hearing until Thursday.

During the proceedings, the Superintendent of Adiala Jail, Saddar Beruni police officials, and SP Nabil Khokhar were present. Additionally, Deputy Director of the Intelligence Bureau Zubair Khan also appeared before the court.

As the hearing resumed after a break, the court questioned the absence of Rawalpindi CPO. A police officer present explained that the CPO was occupied with an international delegation. However, the court was displeased with this explanation and ordered the CPO to appear in person at 9am the following day.

The court dismissed the police report and adjourned the hearing until tomorrow.

The police officer informed the court that a case regarding Muhammad Akram's disappearance had been registered at Saddar Beruni police station. However, Iman Mazari stated that she had not received a copy of the case. Upon the court's orders, a copy was provided, and Mazari raised concerns about the discrepancy in dates, pointing out that the abduction occurred on August 14, while the FIR listed August 19.

The court questioned why the police did not file the case promptly, to which the SP Saddar responded that they had communicated with the jail administration regarding Akram's situation.

Justice Qureshi criticised the lack of urgency shown by both the jail administration and the police, emphasising that respect for their uniforms is paramount. The police assured the court that the CPO would appear the following day.

Case registered

On the other hand, a case under the provisions of abduction has been registered regarding the disappearance of Muhammad Akram, the former Deputy Superintendent of Central Jail Adiala, who went missing from the Jail Colony.

Police said the case has been registered under Section 365 of the Pakistan Penal Code based on a complaint lodged by Akram's wife.

According to the FIR, the complaint from Maimoona Riaz was received on August 19, and an E-tag number was assigned to it. The complaint alleges that the incident occurred on August 14 in the Jail Colony of the Adiala Jail. The officer colony is located at Gate No. 1 of the jail, where security staff is present around the clock, making it nearly impossible for unauthorized persons or vehicles to enter.

There is no CCTV footage or witnesses, and the complainant did not notify the jail superintendent or security staff about the incident. Additionally, the missing individual is not currently posted at Central Jail Adiala. Therefore, the investigation has been assigned under Section 157 of the Criminal Procedure Code to the station in charge of Adiala Rawalpindi, Aftab Shah. The inquiry has yet to resolve the whereabouts of the former deputy superintendent, and further investigation is under way.

COMMENTS

Replying to X

Comments are moderated and generally will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive.

For more information, please see our Comments FAQ