SHC seeks details of airport security in detention cases

Karachi
The Sindh High Court has directed the security incharge of the Quaid-e-Azam International Airport to compile a complete list of employees, including security personnel who were deployed at the international arrival lounge on July 12 and July 28.
The direction came on identical petitions of citizens against the detention of their loved ones from the Karachi airport soon after their arrival by personnel of law enforcement agencies.
Moin Ali submitted that his brother Qaseem Baqaullah, a real estate dealer, had been detained by Dubai police authorities while coming from Masquat on July 26 and later he was asked by the authorities to leave the Dubai along with his brother Qaseem and his British national spouse Yasmeen Khan.
He submitted that they reached the Karachi airport on July 28 via flight FZ-331 and as soon they reached the airport lounge law enforcers took Qaseem into their custody and since then his whereabouts had been unknown.
In another petition, Rangers denied arresting Mohammad Hanif, a resident of Lyari, from the Karachi airport who reached the airport on July 12 via Thai Air.
The court directed the station manager/security incharge of the Karachi airport to submit a list of security personnel deployed at the international security lounge.
The court also directed the DSP airport to look into the matter regarding the recovery of the detainee and submit a report within 10 days.
In the detention case of Naeem Sajid, a carpet dealer, the Rangers denied the custody of the detainee.
Petitioner Amber Naeem submitted that her spouse was picked up by personnel of Rangers in Gulistan-e-Johar on May 27. The court directed the provincial law officer to submit the joint investigation report of Naeem at the next date of hearing.
The court also issued notices to federal and provincial law officers on petitions against the detention of citizens, including government employees, by law enforcement agencies.
The petitions have been filed against illegal detentions of Qadeer Hussain, Mohammad Faisal, Fahad, Mohammad Afzal Bhatti, Mohammad Kashif, Barkatullah Khan, Abid Ali, Mohammad Asim Khan, Faisal Shamim, Mohammad Saeed, Shahid Hussain, Saeed, Syed Altaf Haider Naqvi, Naeem Sajid and Mohammad Imran from Pak Colony, Ranchor Line, Chand Bibi Road, Garden, Malir, Liaquatabad, Manghopir, Shah Faisal Colony and Ghas Mandi areas by the Rangers and personnel of other law enforcement agencies during raids.
According to the petitioners, Syed Altaf Haider Naqvi and Faisal Shamim were employees of the KMC and the health department while other persons were doing private business or jobs.
They said that neither the detainees were produced before any court of the law nor details of their cases were told to the petitioners.
Defence secretary
The Supreme Court has granted leave to appeal filed by the defence secretary against a Sindh High Court order that allowed a petition of court martial convicts for taking into consideration the pre-conviction period of the convict along with other applicable remission.
The SHC on May 27, 2015 had allowed the petition of Qaim Aresar and others, convicts by the field court martial, who claimed that they were entitled to benefit from Section 382 of the CrPC in respect of sentences with corresponding adjustments in the period of imprisonment.
The court directed the jail authorities to take the pre-conviction period of convicts into consideration with other applicable remission.
The secretary defence through deputy attorney general Aslam Butt submitted that Qaim Aresar and others were convicted and sentenced to three years imprisonment by the field court general martial under the Official Secret Act and the Army Act on June 25, 2012 and benefit of Section 382 of CrPC was not legally applicable to the convicts under the Pakistan Army Act.
The DAG submitted that the Supreme Court had already decided that the benefit of Section 382 of the CrPC could not be given to the convicts under the Army Act; therefore, the SHC’s order be set aside.
The court granted leave to appeal to examine whether the benefit of Section 382 of the CrPC extended to the respondents through the SHC judgment was in consonance with the law laid down by the court or otherwise.