The PHC ordered judicial inquiry into the matter and formulated Points of References (PORs) in the case. The court was also appraised of the fact that the missing person was in fact a proclaimed offender and was wanted by the police in 21 different criminal cases.
Chief Justice (CJ) PHC Justice Dost Muhammad Khan, while heading the divisional bench along with Justice Mian Fasihul Mulk, was informed by a counsel for the police, Mian Ayaz, that Mathra police had received information about presence of robbers. These men were planning to rob some Afghan refugees. When police moved against them, one of them, Rahat Hussain, was killed in the ensuing encounter on February 22. It was discovered that Hussain was a proclaimed offender and had been wanted by police in numerous cases including some filed under sections 302, 324, 353, 401 and 13AO.
CCPO Peshawar Imtiaz Altaf, who also appeared before the court, said that Hussain had become a threat to area residents and that a number of families had already migrated to safer places to escape Hussain's extortions (bhatta).
“He has been charged for horrible cases. 13 cases have been registered against Hussain at Police Station Regi whereas the rest were registered at police station Nasir Bagh,” CCPO Altaf said.
Mian Ayaz also informed the court that Mathra police had demanded additional forces to assist their raid and police personnel were duly dispatched.
However, counsel for petitioners Mairaj Bibi and Muhammad Esa Khan challenged the allegations, that Hussain had been in police custody since February 15. They said that SHOs of Mathra and Nasir Bagh police stations had apprehended Hussain from Mustafa Town in Lahore seven days before the alleged encounter.
“The encounter occurred on the night of February 22, whereas the habeas corpus petition was registered on February 18,” CJ said, adding that the matter has raised controversies which needed to be inquired thoroughly.
“Counsel for the CCPO stated that Hussain was involved in different cases but a series of controversies have surfaced. District and Sessions Judge should appoint an Additional District and Sessions Judge to inquire into the matter according to the PORs,” the CJ ordered.
The details of the PORs include that the inquiry officer should take possession of the record of central control room of wireless operators, record of the emergency calls made to the control office for assistance and the respondents of the call made for additional force, the ammunition and the vehicles used in the operation along with recording statements of all the staff participated in the operation against the robbers.
The CJ also ordered the inquiry officer to ascertain as to whether a police encounter took place on February 22 between the local police and the alleged gang of robbers and whether the vehicles used during the encounter were hit by bullets or not. They were further directed to provide a reason if police vehicles had not been hit with bullets.
“Record of the police lines should be looked into, that how many new arms and ammunition were supplied to the concerned police stations, in light of the ones used during the encounter,” the PORs stated,
The CCPO intervened and said, “We have been fighting militants and it was a fifty-fifty chance. Either he died or we did.”
At this, the CJ remarked, “we acknowledge your sacrifices but we want to inquire whether it was in fact a police encounter or a murder of an innocent person?”
Case two:
In another case, CJ PHC issued instructions to the relatives of missing person Shakirullah, to register a case under sections 365, 342 PPC at the concerned police station when the Deputy Attorney General Iqbal Muhmand presented denial of the security agencies before the court not to have picked up Shakirullah.
Zafrullah, petitioner for Shakirulla, who went missing in June 2010 with his relatives from Afghan Colony, had blamed security agencies for picking him up. His relatives, Hazrat Maaz and Hazrat Yousaf were later released after six days.
Case three:
CJ also ordered registration of another FIR under sections 365, 342 when counsel for the state said authorities have denied picking up Hassan Dad, a resident of Muhalla Shaikhan of the District Swabi. Imdad Khan, petitioner for the detainee had alleged Kalu Khan police to have picked Hassan Dad from his poultry form on February 12, 2011.
COMMENTS
Comments are moderated and generally will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive.
For more information, please see our Comments FAQ