August 15, 2026 04:37 am (IST)
Follow us:
facebook-white sharing button
twitter-white sharing button
instagram-white sharing button
youtube-white sharing button
Ajit Doval breaks silence on Operation Sindoor in Discovery’s explosive new docuseries | Rahul Gandhi's 'mock hug' taunt sparks row; Centre stresses 'mutual respect' with Italy | Delhi on high alert: Bomb threat to High Court, airport and multiple locations ahead of I-Day | ‘Who are they to interfere?’: CJI Surya Kant slams Bar Council of India over NALSAR students’ enrolment row | 'Shows how low Congress has sunk': BJP slams Rahul Gandhi over Modi foreign policy jibe | From guns to glamour: Former women Maoists walk the ramp in Chhattisgarh | Netaji row: Suvendu Adhikari govt strips BJP MP Anant Maharaj of state honour | Sukhbir Badal attacked by Nihang Sikh with kirpan at Maharashtra gurdwara; assailant detained | ‘If you cannot do it, we will pass an order’: Supreme Court’s final warning to Centre on food labels | ‘Time to move on’: Bombay HC sends strong message in Vijay Mallya-bank dispute
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.