90 days.
Amir meeting case
The high court granted two days to the law officer of the Rangers to submit comments explaining why the family of a detained member of the MQM’s Rabita Committee, Mohammad Aamir Khan, was not being allowed to meet him in custody.
Mohammad Azam Khan submitted that his brother, Khan, was taken into custody by the Rangers on March 11 during a raid on the MQM’s headquarters Nine Zero.
He said Khan was present with a delegation of the MQM’s Central Executive Committee at a meeting with leaders of a political party belonging to Punjab at Nine Zero when the Rangers personnel took him into custody during a pre-dawn raid.
He said the Rangers had obtained 90-day custody of his brother from an anti-terrorism court under Section 11-EEEE of the ATA, but his family members were not being allowed a meeting with him.
The complainant pleaded with the high court to declare the denial of a meeting with the political leader as illegal and order the DG Rangers to allow his family to see him and also declare that Khan’s detention under 11-EEEE of the ATA was illegal and liable to be struck down.
Case of missing Baloch
The high court directed the federal law officer to file comments on a petition regarding the allegedly illegal arrest of a son of a self-exiled Baloch leader by personnel of law enforcement agencies. The court was hearing the petition against the alleged arrest of Kachkol Baloch’s son.
Mahpara Baloch said that her 21-year-old brother, Nabeel Baloch, had been taken into custody allegedly by personnel of law enforcement agencies on August 30 from the Garden area. She stated that Nabeel’s family members visited the police station of the area to ascertain his whereabouts, but to no avail.
Mahpara said her brother had nothing to do with any political activity, and asked the court to direct the government agencies to ascertain Nabeel’s whereabouts. Her counsel, Salahuddin Ahmed, said that the police were neither disclosing Nabeel’s whereabouts nor providing any details of the charges levelled against him. The court directed the federal law officer to submit comments of the remaining respondents, and adjourned the hearing for a date to be fixed by the office.