August 19, 2026 09:57 am (IST)
Follow us:
facebook-white sharing button
twitter-white sharing button
instagram-white sharing button
youtube-white sharing button
Supreme Court rejects ‘less painful’ death penalty plea, but leaves door open for future change | ‘Vulgarity and disgust’: DMK attacks Vijay over Trisha salute at I-Day event | ‘Take Gyanesh Kumar to the US’: Congress mocks Trump over praise for India’s voter ID system | Big relief for Imran Khan: Pakistan Supreme Court orders hospital transfer amid health fears | Trump praises India’s voter ID system, pushes SAVE America Act | Trump's shock threat to bomb Oman: US President warns ally over Iran deal and Hormuz crisis | Rishabh Pant scripts history! Indian wicketkeeper-batter joins elite 100-sixes club in Test cricket | BJP reshuffles top organisation seven months after Nitin Nabin's elevation | West Bengal STF arrests suspected aide of ISI 'agent' Rana Rauf in Kolkata | ‘Very hopeful’: Indian envoy Dinesh Trivedi breaks silence on PM Tarique Rahman’s proposed India visit
Pakistan Terrorism
Representational image from Wallpaper Flare

Pakistan: Four suspected militants acquitted in explosives case

| @indiablooms | May 31, 2022, at 05:05 am

Islamabad: An anti-terrorism court in Pakistan recently acquitted four suspected members of a militant outfit who were arrested by the counter-terrorism department (CTD) last year on the charge of possessing explosives.

The judge pronounced that the prosecution failed to prove its case against the four accused, including Zeenat Shah, Rehmatullah, Said Jamal and Saeed alias Aswad, and the evidence available on record didn’t connect them with the crime, reports The Dawn.

The CTD, however claimed, the accused were wanted men and were active members of the militant Islamic State (IS) group.

Shabbir Hussain Gigyani, lawyer for the accused, contended that his clients were falsely implicated in the case and they had no linkage with any militant outfit.

He argued that the statements of the prosecution witnesses were in conflict with that of the expert of the bomb disposal unit.

The counsel contended that the case property allegedly recovered from his clients was not produced before the court on pretext that the recovered items had been destroyed.

He argued that the alleged destruction of the case property was not in accordance with law and the legal requirements provided under the Code of Criminal Procedure and Explosive Substance Rules had not been followed.
 

Support Our Journalism

We cannot do without you.. your contribution supports unbiased journalism

IBNS is not driven by any ism- not wokeism, not racism, not skewed secularism, not hyper right-wing or left liberal ideals, nor by any hardline religious beliefs or hyper nationalism. We want to serve you good old objective news, as they are. We do not judge or preach. We let people decide for themselves. We only try to present factual and well-sourced news.

Support objective journalism for a small contribution.