The Sindh High Court (SHC) was informed on Tuesday that Muttahida Qaumi Movement London leader Saathi Ishaque advocate had been booked in a criminal case pertaining to rioting and other offences.
The Darakshan Police Station’s SHO informed the court that he was unaware about alleged Rangers’ raid at the petitioner’s house as he had not received any such information, nor did the petitioner brought such incident into his knowledge.
He informed the court that the MQM London leader had been nominated in an FIR registered at Darakshan Police Station. “The FIR was registered under Sections of 147 (Punishment for rioting), 148 (Every member of unlawful assembly guilty of offence committed in prosecution of common object), 427 (Mischief causing damage to the amount of fifty rupees), 186 (Obstructing public servant in discharge of public functions), 353 (deterring public servant from discharge of his duty), 504(Intentional insult with intent to provoke breach of the peace) read with Section 6 and 7 of the Sindh Sound Act.,” he added.
The SHC bench, headed by Justice Naimatullah Phulptoto, directed the police to act strictly in accordance with the law. It asked the Interior secretary, Home secretary, Rangers’ director general and Sindh police chief to file their respective replies to the petition of the spouse of MQM London leader against alleged unlawful and unconstitutional harassment at the hands of the law enforcement agencies.
Earlier, petitioner Shabana Ishaque, submitted that the law enforcers were unconstitutionally persecuting her and other family members to elicit information about the whereabouts of her husband, Saathi Ishaque. She said she was feeling great apprehension about his safety as his whereabouts were unknown to her.
The petitioner requested the court to direct the law-enforcers to immediately submit complete details of the FIRs and criminal cases registered against her husband. She also prayed to the court to declare that the law-enforcement agencies could not act beyond their official power and capacity to blatantly violate the rights of the petitioner’s husband. It was further requested to restrain the law-enforcers from harassing the petitioner and other family members.
