Custodial killing case pulled out of ATC jurisdiction

The Sindh High Court has ruled that the murder trial of Dr Shahnawaz Kumbhar - allegedly killed in a staged encounter following his arrest in a blasphemy-related case - cannot be heard by an Anti-Terrorism Court.

The Mirpurkhas circuit bench comprising Justice Miran Muhammad Shah and Justice Muhammad Hassan ordered the Anti-Terrorism Court (ATC) Mirpurkhas to transfer the case to the District and Sessions Court, along with the complete record.

The court observed that FIR No 21/2024 does not meet the cumulative legal requirements of Section 6 of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, and therefore Section 7 of the Act cannot be invoked.

According to the record, Dr Kumbhar was allegedly killed by Mirpurkhas police in a staged encounter after he was arrested from Karachi, where he had been hiding following his nomination in a blasphemy case registered in Umerkot, where he worked as a medical officer.

The court was informed that during the transportation of his body for burial, an angry mob intercepted the ambulance, took custody of the body, and set it on fire, depriving the family of a lawful and dignified burial.

Dr Kumbhar's cousin and complainant in the case, Ibrahim Kumbhar, said they intend to challenge the Sindh High Court's decision in the Supreme Court, maintaining that the trial should remain within the ATC's jurisdiction.

The bench noted that FIR 21/2024 names 23 accused persons, including former DIG Mirpurkhas Javed Jiskani and two SSPs, and pertains to unlawful detention, torture, and killing. Allegations of a fake encounter and concealment of facts were also part of the record.

The judges held that these allegations prima facie fall under the Pakistan Penal Code (PPC) relating to custodial torture and custodial killing rather than terrorism.

The court further observed that seven FIRs were registered in connection with the case across Umerkot, Mirpurkhas, and the FIA Mirpurkhas circle. While Dr Kumbhar was booked in multiple cases including blasphemy and illegal weapons, police officers and a religious figure were nominated in counter-cases.

The judgment also referred to the FIA's charge-sheet submitted before the ATC, noting that it reinforces the view that the matter relates to custodial abuse and cover-up rather than terrorism.

Citing Supreme Court precedents, the bench reiterated that even brutal killings driven by personal or localised motives do not fall under terrorism unless the statutory requirements of the Anti-Terrorism Act are clearly met.

"The ATC's assumption of jurisdiction cannot be sustained," the order stated, warning that treating custodial killings as terrorism would blur the legal distinction between ordinary crimes and terrorism cases.