October 19, 2026 03:25 pm (IST)
Follow us:
facebook-white sharing button
twitter-white sharing button
instagram-white sharing button
youtube-white sharing button
'Internet access a fundamental right for children': SC rejects age-based 'blanket' ban | 'We will fight our own government': RG Kar victim's father threatens fresh protest after Sandip Ghosh gets bail | RG Kar shocker: Sandip Ghosh gets bail as only 7 of 147 witnesses examined, junior doctor blasts CBI | Trump waives Russia-related sanctions | 'How dare Elon Musk?' Owaisi defends Modi after billionaire's 'real boss' jibe at Ambani | 'B****y S***': IAS officer's abuse of female colleague during virtual J&K meeting sparks row | Aamir Khan’s nephew Imran Khan asked to leave India by Oct 28 after joining anti-CEC protest | ‘Their crime? Demanding justice’: Rahul Gandhi slams 4 AM detention of Ankita Bhandari’s parents | ‘Bangladesh showed us the way’: Neha Bora’s remarks spark BJP attack on Rahul Gandhi | Chingrighata flyover skid scare: Bikes fall, anti-skid blocks installed overnight as Bengal Minister Agnimitra Paul faces criticism
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.