ATC extends remand of accused by five days

An anti-terrorism court (ATC) has extended the remand of the accused in the Mustafa Amir kidnapping and murder case for five more days. The accused — Armughan and Shiraz — were presented before the ATC inside the Central Jail following the completion of their initial remand on Thursday.

The prosecution informed the judge that further steps, including the 164 statement and the identification parade for employees of Armughan, were yet to be conducted. The defence lawyer, Advocate Abid Zaman, raised a concern, requesting that his client Armughan be allowed to sign a power of attorney.

Armughan's mother also sought permission to meet her son, but the judge clarified that meetings could only take place within the courtroom, not outside. When the judge asked the accused whom he wanted as his legal representation, Armughan expressed his wish to be represented by both Abid Zaman and Tahir Ur Rehman. The judge, however, directed him to file a power of attorney for only one lawyer at a time. Armughan ultimately chose Abid Zaman as his counsel.

Advocate Zaman also filed a request for a medical examination of his client arguing that Armughan is in poor health and requires treatment. Armughan claimed that he had been denied food and bathroom access for days in police custody. He alleged that police officers had mocked him, laughing at his situation and telling him that his physical remand had been extended. The defence lawyer explained that the accused was disturbed and ill, which led him to make these statements.

The court took note of these claims and ordered a medical examination for Armughan. It was also revealed that the girl who had allegedly been tortured by Armughan had been located, and DNA testing would be conducted. Police informed the court that they had yet to receive notice from the defence for the 164 statements of the witnesses, but the investigation was ongoing.

Armughan himself protested against his remand, alleging he was being harassed by police. However, the investigating officer (IO) stated that the accused had refused to cooperate when he was initially produced before the judicial magistrate.