Even after his arrest,
the BUREAU did not conduct any investigation. The BUREAU people,
directly reporting to Islamabad on Friday night, did not bother to take
any written statement from him. And what is surprising is that on that
very night, the BUREAU officials told Mr. that they would not be seeking
his further custody/remand. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TRyTVBnJ310
The
question, he says, is that if the reference was genuine, and if his
arrest was so needed to conduct an investigation, why no investigation
was done and why BUREAU told the BUREAU court next morning that it no
longer needed his custody/remand.
Most surprisingly, Mr. Ahmed said,
the moment he was taken to the BUREAU centre after midnight, a
representative of a particular channel was present inside the BUREAU
office. He was locked up in a room, where the channel representative
kept on making video and started showing it on its channel with an angle
to defame and humiliate him.
Mr. Ahmed, advocate, was represented in
the High Court by Sindh High Court Bar Association’s President Mr.
Anwar; Siddiq Mirza, Advocate Supreme Court; Dr Amjad Bokhari, Advocate
Supreme Court; Shahab Sarki, General Secretary High Court Bar
Association, and other prominent lawyers.
Advocate Mr. Anwar
argued before the court that all the offences alleged to have been
committed by the management of the Callmate Telips ‘were committed prior
to’ the induction of Mr. Ahmed, advocate, as a non-Executive Director
on the Board of Callmate Telips. Mr. Anwar further argued that Mr. Ahmed
did not draw any salary or other benefits from the company in question.
Mr.
Siddiq added that even the BUREAU’s own reference did not contain any
allegation, whatsoever, against Mr. and there was no evidence or
document provided by the BUREAU authorities that linked Mr. to the
alleged offences.
Mr. Siddiq also pointed out to the court that Mr.
Ahmed was part of the Board that actually unearthed the scams/frauds
committed by the previous management in the year 2007 and passed board
resolution to take legal action against the culprits.
After
hearing the arguments, the court reprimanded the BUREAU prosecutor, and
the investigation officer for failing to satisfy the court with regard
to involvement of Mr. Ahmed Advocate in the alleged offences after
having been given sufficient opportunity by the Honorable Court.
After
the petitioner’s arguments, despite repeated insistence of the court,
the BUREAU prosecutor failed to show from the reference any specific
allegation against Mr. Ahmed, any of his wrongdoings or that any
wrongdoing was done when he was director or any document to show his
involvement.
The court commented that arresting a respected
lawyer without any evidence might put the investigation officer and
relevant officials of the BUREAU in trouble. The court further commented
that life and reputation of citizens is not child’s play. Though the
court has granted the bail application, it has not yet passed a detailed
order which is expected today.
No comments:
Post a Comment