PESHAWAR The Peshawar High Court on Thursday wondered what legal steps it could take for recovery of scores of missing persons when the security agencies concerned never accepted their involvement in such issues.

A two-member bench comprising Chief Justice Ejaz Afzal Khan and Justice Mazhar Alam Miankhel, hearing several cases of missing persons, observed that facts had often been concealed from the courts in those cases.

The chief justice asked a former president of PHCBA, Abdul Lateef Afridi, appearing in one of the cases, that he should guide the court properly how they could deal with cases of illegal detention and take action against those violating the law.

The bench disposed of one of the petitions, filed by father of a missing person as the army denied that they had never detained him.

The court directed the petitioner's counsel that the petitioner could file another petition if he came to know regarding the whereabouts of the detainee.

The petition was filed by Mohammad Younas, father of the detainee Mohammad Yousaf. The petitioner, who is a private secretary at the office of Kohat commissioner, alleged that he and his son were taken into custody by some army officials on July 31, 2009, at Kohat.

The petitioner claimed that after remaining in captivity he was released, but his son had still been missing.

Apparently, he said the army officials were searching for his other son, Mohammad Huzaif, but when they could not trace him they detained Yousaf.

An army official appeared on Thursday and expressed ignorance about the detention of Yousaf.

Advocate Shahnawaz Khan, appearing for the petitioner, stated that they were not aware where the detainee had been kept.

The bench disposed of the petition observing that as the army had denied the detention, therefore, the petition had become infructuous.

In another petition filed by a resident of Hangu district against alleged detention of his son, the bench directed the deputy attorney general, Mohammad Iqbal Mohmand, to contact the intelligence agencies to ascertain in whose custody he was.

The petition is filed by Fazal Jamal, father of the detainee Taj Mohammad.

He claimed that the officials of Bana Mari police and some officials of a security agency had raided Bahadur village in Peshawar on Mar 25, 2009, and arrested his son along with some other persons.

Advocates Jawed Iqbal and Khizar Hayat represented the petitioner and stated that Attaullah Khan, one of the persons arrested in that raid, was traced at Adiala prison.

The court directed the DAG that if one of the arrested persons was in Adiala prison, then the detainee might also be in custody of any agency. It was directed that the DAG should contact different agencies in that regard.

Meanwhile, in two other cases an official of the Mohmand Rifles informed the court that they had handed over the detainees to the tribal administration in Mohmand Agency.

One of the petitions is filed by Itebar Gul, whose close relative, Moazam Khan, was allegedly arrested by police on May 12, 2009, in Faqirabad area and was later on handed over to the Mohmand Rifles. Lateef Afridi appeared for the petitioner.

In the other petition Advocate Iqbal Kazmi appeared for the detainee, Wazir Gul, and contended that he was in illegal detention for the last many months.

An official of Mohmand Rifles, Major Raheel, appeared before the court and stated that the detainees had been given in custody of the administration there.

The bench fixed Jan 21 for next hearing with the direction to the administration to produce all the relevant record regarding their detention.

Meanwhile, in another petition the court directed the tribal administration of Frontier Region Kohat to release a detainee, Misal Khan, on furnishing two surety bonds of Rs300,000 each.

Advocate Wali Khan Afridi appeared for the detainee and stated that he was picked from settled area by the local police and handed over to the administration of FR Kohat.

He added that the detainee was arrested under Frontier Crimes Regulation which was illegal.

An official of the administration appearing for the assistant political agent stated that he was arrested under section 21 of FCR dealing with collective responsibility in connection with the kidnapping of the vice-chancellor of Kohat University few weeks ago.

The bench observed how various persons could be arrested through a general order. It was added that the administration had to issue specific names for detaining persons under FCR.