An Anti-Terrorism Court (ATC) on Thursday handed over Shahrukh Jatoi and three others accused in Shahzeb Khan murder case to police on a seven-day physical remand.
Five people were nominated in Shahzeb’s murder, of which three had been arrested earlier while Sikandar Jatoi and his son Sharukh Jatoi were fugitives.
Sikandar had appeared before the Supreme Court after acquiring a one-day protective bail from the Lahore High Court, however, he was also arrested from the apex court’s premises.
Shahrukh, who is the prime suspect, was extradited to Pakistan early on Thursday morning from Dubai. He had surrendered to officials at the Pakistani consulate earlier. On Thursday, police brought Sharukh Jatoi, Siraj Talpur, Sajjad Talpur and Ghulam Murtaza Lashari in the ATC in an armoured personnel carrier with faces covered.
Investigation officer, Muhammad Mobin presented them before ATC-III Judge Ghulam Mustafa Memon and requested the court for the second police custody remand of accused Siraj Talpur, Sajjad Talpur and Ghulam Murtaza Lashari, as the court before had remanded them until January 17. The investigation officer requested the court for remand of accused Shahrukh Jatoi.
He submitted before the court that he would interrogate the accused, recover weapons and the vehicle used in the crime and would also arrest two other absconding accused. The IO requested the court that accused be given in remand as his physical presence was needed for investigation. The court ordered that the ground advanced for police remand appeared to be justified, therefore, seven days in police custody were granted.
The court also directed the investigation officer to produce the accused on the next date on time and IO was also tasked with submitting a final report within the stipulated time. The IO submitted that he had released Sikandar Jatoi exercising 497 (ii) CrPC, on which the court directed him to submit proper report of the release of Sinkandar Jatoi under the said section.
Naeem Qureshi, counsel for Shahrukh Jatoi, moved an application for seeking a separate trial under the Juvenile Justice System Ordinance 2000, saying his client was less than 18 years of age at the time of his arrest. The court allowed his application and directed for his client’s medical examination.
