PESHAWAR, Nov 19: The Peshawar High Court on Tuesday disposed of a habeas corpus petition of a missing person, who was later on charged by the local police of planning to carry out a suicide blast, with the direction to the Peshawar district and sessions judge to look into his case. A bench comprising Chief Justice Dost Mohammad Khan and Justice Ms Mussarat Hilali directed the district judge to exercise his powers of Justice of Peace under Section 22-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure and decide whether any case could be registered against the local police keeping in view the evidence on record.

In July this year one Humayun had filed a petition before the high court, stating that his close relative Fazal Shah was arrested by the local police in the jurisdiction of East Cantonment police station and since then he had been missing. While that petition was pending a few days later the local police declared that the alleged detainee Fazal Shah and his accomplice Zain Shah, both residents of Mohmand Agency, were arrested on July 24, 2013 in the jurisdiction of Khazana police station on the outskirts of Peshawar.

The police alleged that the two suspects were riding a motorcycle and Fazal Shah was wearing a suicide vest. It was alleged that the would-be suicide bomber was planning to blow himself up, but had not identified any target at that time. The accused persons were charged under Section 7 of the Anti-Terrorism Act, Section 13 of the Arms Ordinance and Section 3 and 4 of the Explosive Substance Act.

An Anti-Terrorism Court in Peshawar acquitted the two suspects on Oct 11 for lack of evidence. The court had accepted an application of the two suspects under Section 265-K of the CrPC under which the court was empowered to acquit a suspect before conclusion of trial when the court believed that the evidence on record would not result in conviction of the accused.

The petitioner contended before the bench that how it was possible that a suicide bomber would not blow himself when stopped by the police. He stated that the detainee was falsely implicated in the case of terrorism and the court might order registration of FIR against the policemen concerned.

In a lighter vein, Justice Mussarat Hilali observed that in past the police used to implicate persons in false narcotics cases, whereas now they had been implicating them in cases relating to possession of suicide vests.

Additional advocate general Naveed Akhter and East Cantonment police station SHO Kamal Hussain appeared before the bench and denied that the suspect was in their custody much before declaration of his arrest by the police. The SHO also produced diary register of the police station to prove his point.

The bench observed that it had now become a factual controversy whether the detainee was arrested prior to the occurrence or not, therefore it could not be decided in the constitutional jurisdiction of the high court. The bench referred the matter to the district judge who would exercise powers of “Justice of Peace” and decide whether the FIR could be registered against the police or not.