• One other prosecutor greenlights IO to file cost sheet in court docket with out together with judicial fee’s report
• 4 members of buying plaza’s administration committee and proprietor of synthetic flower store may also face trial
KARACHI: An 11-year-old boy is ready to be tried in a court docket of regulation for igniting a fireplace on the Gul Plaza Procuring Middle on Jan 17 that resulted within the deaths of 72 individuals.
This was acknowledged in a cost sheet filed in court docket by the investigating officer of the Gul Plaza fireplace case by in-charge district prosecutor Abdul Razzaq Gujjar on Saturday.
Solely on Friday, one other prosecutor had returned the cost sheet to the IO, asking him to take away sure defects he identified and embody the report of a judicial fee.
Nonetheless, prosecutor Gujjar gave the go-ahead to the IO to file the cost sheet because the judicial fee’s report may be filed at a later stage.
In keeping with the cost sheet, 72 individuals had misplaced their lives, eight sustained accidents and 1,153 outlets had been gutted within the devastating fireplace.
The IO named six individuals — 11-year-old boy, Huzaifa; his father, Naimatullah, the proprietor of a man-made flower store; Gul Plaza Administration Committee members Tanveer Pasta; Amar Ismail; Muhammad Ramazan; and Muhammad Ameen — as accused individuals.
All of the nominated individuals have been proven as absconders within the cost sheet. The IO has listed 42 prosecution witnesses within the case.
In keeping with the cost sheet, a number of prosecution witnesses had recorded their statements underneath Part 164 of the legal process code earlier than a judicial Justice of the Peace. One in all them, 13-year-old Aryan, deposed that he was current at his buddy Huzaifa’s store at Gul Plaza and Huzaifa was taking part in with matchsticks when the fireplace all of a sudden broke out within the store.
It stated that his testimony was additionally supported by two different eyewitnesses, Mohammad Talha and Hamza Amir, who deposed that Huzaifa’s father, Naimatullah, used at hand over the store to his underage son.
It stated as per the decision knowledge document (CDR), Naimatullah was additionally not current on the store on the time of the incident.
The cost sheet acknowledged that an underage boy was working the store and the officers of the administration committee had did not take any motion towards Naimatullah or restrain him from permitting his juvenile son to function the store alone.
The cost sheet additionally acknowledged that the exit factors of the constructing had been locked or blocked, there have been inadequate fireplace extinguishers and fireplace security gear, no fireplace hydrant system was put in and no association of emergency back-up lights as electrical energy was disconnected after the fireplace broke out and engulfed the constructing.
It additional stated that as per the CDR of the administration committee members, they’d not made any name to the fireplace brigade or different rescue and emergency companies and had proven negligence on their half.
The IO additionally acknowledged within the cost sheet that since Huzaifa is a minor, a cost sheet towards him was being filed earlier than a juvenile court docket.
Different suspects have been charged with the offenses underneath Sections 285 (negligent conduct with respect to fireside or flamable matter), 322 (manslaughter), 337-H (punishment for damage by rash or negligent act), 436 (mischief by fireplace or explosive substance with intent to destroy home, and so on.) and 34 (frequent intention) of the Pakistan Penal Code.
Earlier, IO Inspector Pervez Ahmed Bhutto had tried thrice to submit the cost sheet, however the prosecution — deputy district prosecutors Muhammad Arif Sitai and Asadullah Maitlo — had identified defects and directed him to rectify them.
After scrutinizing the cost sheet and different related information, the prosecution had raised objections for not together with the names of officers from the related regulatory departments in addition to these belonging to the earlier union.
That they had additionally requested the IO to acquire licensed copies of the judicial fee’s report in addition to the findings of a joint investigation group constituted by the Sindh authorities to probe the incident and to position the identical on document together with the cost sheet.
Nonetheless, the IO filed the cost sheet with out eradicating these defects or acquiring the report of the judicial fee and JIT.
Printed in Daybreak, July fifth, 2026
