SHC overturns verdict to release terror accused

The Sindh High Court (SHC) has annulled the decision of the special magistrate that had granted the release of Aman Chandio and Sarmad Mirani, two accused arrested in connection with a terrorism case. The court ordered that both accused be presented before the Anti-Terrorism Court (ATC) and a detailed report submitted within five days.

The SHC bench issued the order while hearing a petition filed by the Counter-Terrorism Department (CTD), which challenged the judicial magistrate's verdict to release the two suspects.

Sindh' Acting Prosecutor General Muntazir Mehdi argued that a ruling by the Lahore High Court had clarified the powers of magistrates in such cases. According to the judgment, magistrates do not have the authority to invoke Section 63, a power reserved for the ATC. Mehdi prayed that the accused be brought before the ATC, even if they were to be released from there.

In their defense, the counsel for the accused contended that magistrates do not issue remand orders arbitrarily. They maintained that the magistrate exercised his discretion properly in ordering the release. The defence further argued that link magistrates and duty magistrates hold equivalent authority, and magistrates are indeed empowered to invoke Section 63.

The court raised pertinent questions regarding the scope of authority vested in a link judge and sought clarification on the legal framework defining the magistrate's discharge powers. Aamir Nawaz Warraich, representing the defence, cited a 2008 judgment that grants area magistrates the power to discharge accused. He further argued that the accused were not presented before the duty magistrate due to procedural formalities and that the magistrate possessed full authority in such cases.

However, the SHC bench expressed doubts about the legal validity of the magistrate's decision, questioning whether the remand report had been properly examined. It pointed out that the report only sought transit remand and raised concerns over whether Section 63 could be invoked in such cases.