SC gives six weeks to Sukkur police for arrest of two murder accused
ISLAMABAD: The Supreme Court on Tuesday gave six weeks’ deadline to the Sukkur Police for arrest of accused Ghulam Murtaza and Zulifqar Chandio, involved in the murder of three persons.
A three-member bench of the apex court, headed by Justice Umar Ata Bandial and comprising Justice Faisal Arab and Justice Mazhar Alam Khan Miankhel, heard the case.
During the course of proceedings, the bench expressed annoyance over the performance of Sukkur Police and stated that the Sindh police could not do anything in 2 years to apprehend fugitives.
Justice Umar Ata Bandial observed that police submitted same report on every proceedings due to influence of the accused. If the accused are not arrested, the Supreme Court would not disposed of the case, he added.
Justice Faisal Arab asked why was the police not arresting the accused?
The DIG Sukkur Police said that police teams were conducting raids at different spots and they were also in contact with the intelligence agencies.
He said it was possible that the accused were in Balochistan and assured that the police would arrest the accused soon.
Justice Faisal Arab asked whether security was being provided to the plaintiffs.
The DIG replied that ten policemen had been given to the plaintiff’s party. He said that police had arrested five accused out of seven.
Faisal Siddiqui, counsel for the petitioner, said that initially three persons were murdered and later the plaintiff party was also attacked for three times. He said that the accused were influential and one of them was local chieftain.
He said that police also failed to arrest attackers. Plaintiffs, witnesses and counselors have been attacked, he added. He said that the police released one accused out of two nominated accused.
Justice Umar Ata Bandial said that the court was dissatisfied with the performance of the police.
The police had the ability to perform duties and it just had to work independently, he added. He said that now the case would be heard in court and the bench would not ask for further reports.
Later, hearing of the case was adjourned till third week of March. – APP