KARACHI: Karachi police claim they have identified one of the two suspected suicide bombers responsible for the blasts at Abdullah Shah Ghazi shrine in Karachi. Police have said the bomber has been identified as Naseebullah and claim that he belongs to Dir.
According to police reports the bomber was identified by his relatives who were taken into custody on Thursday night following the twin blasts that killed eight people and injured 65 others.
Investigations into the twin blasts have been underway since Thursday night. TPO Clifton Tariq Dharijo said thorough investigations are being conducted at the shrine.
Police sources informed Express News that a family had come forth saying their teenaged child had been missing from home for the past five days. Police had said they would be conducting DNA tests to ascertain whether the child was the bomber.
Investigations revealed that the two bombers were most likely teenaged boys. A team headed by Azad Khan Tanoli has been conducting the investigations for the FIA and Saud Mirza is heading the CID investigation.
TPO Clifton says the Auqaf Department responsible for security at the shrine had ignored repeated requests to install CCTV cameras at the venue.
Security beefed up in Karachi
Rangers stepped up patrols in Karachi to try and prevent violence after angry mobs rampaged through the city in the aftermath of Thursday's suicide attack.
Mobs took to the streets after the attack, firing bullets, setting tires on fire and torching at least four buses. Most traffic remains off the road today to avoid new possible outbursts of violence.
Meanwhile, the government has ordered closure of all tombs and mausoleums in the city for public security for an indefinite time. Sindh Home Minister Dr Zulfiqar Mirza said the decision was taken considering the level of threat to the holy places. The tombs would be reopened after the implementation of a proper security plan to avoid such incident in the future.
Comments are moderated and generally will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive.
For more information, please see our Comments FAQ