PoJK special court rejects plea of Ahmed Farhad’s disappearance after his surprise appearance in custody

Muzaffarabad (PoJK), June 6 (ANI): An anti-terrorism court in Pakistan-Occupied Jammu and Kashmir (PoJK) rejected the plea for bail of forcefully abducted Ahmed Farhad Shah. The court while rejecting the plea commented that the legal points stated by his counsel did not apply to the case at hand, Dawn reported.

Surprisingly, Shah who had been abducted from his Islamabad residence on May 15 and had been missing ever since, was found in the custody of Gujjar Kohala police, a village near the PoJK border with Khyber Pakhtunkhwa on May 29.

Almost when an ongoing case of his safe return was being heard by the Islamabad High Court (IHC). At that time, the court hearing had taken a serious turn when the IHC summoned defence and intelligence secretaries to the court relating to that case.

Justice Mohsin Akhtar Kayani of IHC, hearing Shah’s case had framed 12 questions mostly related to the functions and obligations of spy agencies.

Initially, the Saddar police station’s FIR of May 13 was kept ‘secret’ by police, but later it emerged that it was registered against 150-200 unidentified “miscreants” for “inciting violence, blocking roads and attacking the convoy of paramilitary force Rangers at different spots during its journey from Bararkot to Muzaffarabad on May 13 at the behest of Joint Awami Action Committee (JAAC)”, reported Dawn.

Responding to these claims Karam Dad Khan in his arguments said that Shah was not even a nominated accused in the FIR in question and that he had been implicated in the case with mala fide intentions.

Additionally, the council also questioned how could Shah orchestrate these acts when he was present in Islamabad, no internet services were allowed in PoJK during the questioned protests.

During the case, arguments were made that Shah was added to the FIR when he was traced through social media during the investigation, as reported by Dawn.

Shah had shared “factually wrong, provocative and hate-filled material” on his Facebook account during the days of protests.

Earlier on May 13, he incited hatred against the law-enforcement institutions, following which two more sections were added to the FIR, the special prosecutor contended, among other things. The opposition council also supported the grant of bail when the prosecutor was looking to recover his phone.

Conclusively, special judge Mahmood Farooq said “A perusal of the advertised material reveals that the content was not only hateful and inflammatory but also exaggerated the loss of lives during the protests, escalating provocation and hatred between the public and the law-enforcement agencies”. And Prima facie, the petitioner/accused appears to be connected with the offences entered initially and added afterwards in the FIR.”