HYDERABAD, May 27: The Sindh High Court, Hyderabad circuit bench, comprising Justice Sajjad Ali Shah and Justice Mohammad Ali Mazhar on Friday directed the SP investigation of Hyderabad Ghulam Nabi Keerio to produce a man, allegedly kept in wrongful confinement by police, before the court on May 30 and restrain police officials from harassing her mother and other relatives.

The court ordered that no official would contact mother of the detained man for the purpose of investigation into disappearance of her son except the SP.

It passed the order on a petition filed by Aysha Bhatti through Abdul Sattar Sarki advocate, seeking release of her son Akbar Bhatti. The DPOs of Hyderabad and Dadu; Allan Abbasi, the supervising police officer (SPO) of Khairpur Nathan Shah; Mir Ahmed Pathan, SHO of Khairpur Nathan Shah; Anwar Lakho, in-charge, CIA centre, Hyderabad; inspectors Tariq Khanzada, Ibrahim Pitafi, Javed Shaikh and Zulfiqar Arain and others have been cited as respondents.

The petitioner alleged that on May 11, SPO Abbasi, SHO Lakho and police constables Gullan and Haji Khan Khoso picked up her son Akbar alias Pappu from their house and many people witnessed this. She said that he is now in illegal confinement of respondent inspectors.

Prior to his arrest the inspectors, with heavy contingent of police, raided her house on March 9, humiliated and maltreated family members as he was not available at home.

She alleged that the inspectors took away her husband Ghulam Abbas. He was kept at Pinyari police station for 17 days and then let him off after taking bribe, Ms Aysha alleged.

She said that she came to know that her son had been detained at the CIA centre and approached its in-charge and inquired about detention of her son.

She said that he allowed her to see him and he told her that he was being tortured.

The petitioner said that she requested Lakho to release her son but he refused, saying he was detained on directives of the Hyderabad DPO thus he was not in a position to release him.

She said that she approached the DPO to know cause of her son's arrest but to no avail. The DPO threatened her of serious consequences if she again approached him, she alleged.

The inspectors demanded bribe to release his son and threatened that he would be murdered in a managed encounter if she failed to pay bribe, she further alleged. They said that they had murdered many people in such encounters, she alleged.

Akbar is not produced before any court of law for obtaining his remand, she said, and added that her son was in illegal confinement of police and was being tortured. She requested the court to order his production before the court along with list of cases against him, if any.

The Additional Advocate-General and SP investigation Ghulam Nabi Keerio appeared before the court along with inspectors Lakho, Pitafi, Shaikh, Khanzada, Arain and Abbasi. The court had ordered them on last hearing of the case to appear in the court.

The AAG of Sindh A.B. Soomro filed comments on behalf of respondent police officials, denying that they had picked up Akbar who was wanted in a case and was an absconding accused.

The petitioner presented an audio recording of a conversation between her and SHO Pathan before the court in the chamber in presence of the SP investigation and Mr Soomro.

According to petitioner's counsel, the SHO admitted to have told her that he had handed over her son to inspector Lakho and she should settle the issue with him through bribe. The SHO also told her that he had picked-up her son and detained him somewhere.

The court said that it was a fit case for registration of FIR of kidnapping for ransom against policemen involved.

The SP investigation ensured the court that efforts would be made to produce Akbar in the court on May 30. He said that in case Akbar is not recovered, an FIR would be lodged.

The court ordered that till May 30 it would be sole responsibility of SP to keep a watch on respondent police officials and to ensure their production before the court.

He assured that no harassment to petitioner or her family members shall be caused and no officials would contact petitioner or her family members even for purpose of investigation, except he himself.