Maintainability of Moazzam’s release plea questioned
Karachi The counsel contesting a plea filed by his spouse for the release of Moazzam Ali Khan from the Federal Investigation Agency’s (FIA) custody was on Thursday directed to satisfy the Sindh High Court (SHC) with respect to maintaining the plea of a person incarcerated in Islamabad. Khan, alleged to
By our correspondents
November 13, 2015
Karachi The counsel contesting a plea filed by his spouse for the release of Moazzam Ali Khan from the Federal Investigation Agency’s (FIA) custody was on Thursday directed to satisfy the Sindh High Court (SHC) with respect to maintaining the plea of a person incarcerated in Islamabad. Khan, alleged to have facilitated the murder of former Muttahida Qaumi Movement’s senior leader Imran Farooq in London, was arrested by Rangers personnel on April 12, from his home in Azizabad. He was initially remanded in the custody of the paramilitary force for a period of 90 days, however, on expiration of the remand he was then handed over to the FIA for another three months on July 13; and had since been in their custody in Islamabad. Petitioner Sadia Bano, submitting details of her husband’s arrest stated that the custody of the detainee was illegally handed over to the FIA as he had already undergone a 90-day detention period. As for the joint investigation team, she maintained that the team which also comprised of FIA officials had already completed its investigation. Fearing that her spouse would again be handed over to some other investigation agency, she urged the court to direct the interior ministry to release her husband and shift him back to Karachi from Islamabad. SHC’s division bench headed by Justice Naimatullah Phulpoto directed the petitioner’s counsel to satisfy the court about the maintainability of the petition as the detainee was being held in another city which already had its own high court; the hearing was adjourned till December 8. The interior ministry had extended Khan’s detention period on the suggestion of the JIT, claiming that he was involved in activities prejudicial to external affairs and security of the country, hence, it was essential to fulfill the obligation of cooperating with the comity of nation to combat terrorism and crimes.