PESHAWAR: The Peshawar High Court (PHC) on Monday issued notices to the Counter Terrorism Department (CTD) and the provincial police chief seeking their response to a petition filed for the recovery of a missing person from Swabi.
The bench, headed by the Chief Justice SM Attique Shah heard the petition filed for the recovery of the missing person.
The petitioner’s counsel, the CTD Swabi in-charge, and CTD Senior Law Officer Zafar Abbas Mirza appeared in the court.
The petitioner’s lawyer informed the court that the missing person had allegedly been picked up by CTD officials in Swabi.
However, both the police and CTD later denied any knowledge of the incident, prompting the petitioner to approach the court to determine who had taken the individual and where he was being held.
Addressing CTD officials, the chief justice noted that serious allegations had been leveled against the department.
The CTD Swabi in-charge responded that they had no knowledge of the person’s whereabouts and that he was not in their custody.
The chief justice remarked that despite the availability of modern technology, authorities had failed to trace the missing individual.
He observed that in the past, the Crime Investigation Department (CID) had complete knowledge of their respective districts, but today, even with advanced tools, officials appeared unaware of the person’s whereabouts.
During the hearing, Chief Justice S.M. Atiq Shah remarked that despite the availability of modern technology, authorities had failed to trace the missing person.
He observed that in the past, the CID had complete knowledge of their respective districts, but today, even with advanced tools, officials appeared unaware of the person’s whereabouts.
Expressing dissatisfaction, the chief justice questioned how a person could simply disappear, remarking that it was unacceptable to claim ignorance in such a case.
He criticized the officials for failing to obtain call detail records (CDR), stating that such measures were basic investigative steps and not “rocket science.”
The CTD official assured the court that the CDR would be presented at the next hearing. However, the Chief Justice directed that instead of merely submitting records, the missing person should be recovered and produced before the court at the next hearing.
The court also questioned the CTD’s investigative practices and the implementation of judicial orders. In response, the senior law officer stated that limited custody granted by courts weakened the investigation process.
The chief justice instructed the department to formally request custody if needed and questioned why action was not taken against those who level false allegations against CTD when such claims remain unproven.
