Sapna Khan case: Case to resume in the new year

Case adjourned till January 6 after SHO Race Course fails to file comments on time.


Express December 31, 2011

LAHORE: Additional District & Sessions Judge Choudhary Nazeer Ahmed adjourned till January 6 a petition filed by Misal Khan father of Sapna Khan seeking copy of FIR against former Punjab chief minister Dost Muhammad Khosa and his accomplices for allegedly abducting and murdering Sapna.

Earlier, a duty judge had directed the station house officer (SHO) Race Course to submit a detailed and para-wise reply by Dec 31. However, no comments were submitted on Saturday. The counsel of Khosa prayed the court to affix January 6 as the next date, stating the matter was also pending before the Lahore High Court.

According to details, petitioner Misal Khan contended in his petition that it was conveyed to him by police officials that an FIR had been registered but it was sealed for some reason. He implored the court that respondents listed, including CCPO Lahore, IG Punjab and SHO Race Course were under legal duty to facilitate the copy of the FIR to him as it was his legal right.

Misal Khan told the court that it was a matter of record that the local police was favouring the accused because he was the Ex-Chief Minister of Punjab and was a front line political figure of the ruling party in Punjab. Additionally he contended that the present government was backing the accused. He further contended that he was the father of Zeba Khan alias Sapna Khan, and was being treated like animal for registering a criminal case.

He prayed the court to direct SHO Race Course to provide him with a copy of the FIR so that it could be made the part of record. He also prayed the court to direct SHO to register another case against former Chief Minister for producing forged documents before the court to establish that petitioner (Misal Khan) was not the actual father of Sapna Khan.

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