Judicial Magistrate (South), Kalsoom Sahito, has remanded SBCA officials including five directors, two deputy directors, one inspector, and the building owner to police custody for three days in Lyari building collapse case.
The police presented arrested officers of the SBCA, including Zargham Haider, Syed Irfan Haider Naqvi, Ashfaq Hussain, Muhammad Jalees Siddiqui, Syed Faheem Murtaza, Asim Ali Khan, Faheem Ahmed, Syed Zulfikar Ali Shah, and Rahim Hussain Shah.
The defendants claimed that they were arrested under political pressure and had no role in the approval of the building which was constructed when they were no even appointed.
During the proceeding, the court inquired about the number of registered cases. The investigating officer (IO) confirmed that only one case had been filed following the building collapse. The police sought physical remand to continue their investigations.Inspector Zahid Hussain requested maximum remand time, explaining that the accused persons possess important documentary records that need to be retrieved. He stated that due to the negligence of the accused, 27 people lost their lives, and four others were injured. The court also summoned the building owner.
Defence lawyer Zeeshan Rajpar argued that Rahim Bakhsh, the owner, is also a victim. He has lost his son, son-in-law, and three other relatives in the incident.
Advocate Shahab Sarkhi stated that the building in question was constructed in 1986 and that the SBCA possesses relevant records. He questioned why the authorities had not yet identified who approved the building, who issued the completion letter, or who granted the structural approvals. Sarkhi pointed out that the building had already been declared dangerous before its collapse, and he called for a thorough examination of the approval documents.
He criticised the ongoing harassment of the people, asking what the minister’s problem was in bringing the necessary records to light. He stated that the issue of who provided the completion plan should not be our concern, urging those affected to file a case but insisting that the investigation be conducted properly.
Sarkhi condemned the arrests made under political pressure just three days after the tragedy, noting that some individuals were detained and later released due to political influence, and that no ministers had been implicated in the case. He said, arrests made without investigation, are illegal.
SBCA officers claimed they were not posted in that area, still they were implicated in the case.
GM Qureshi advocate argued that the prosecution had stated in the remand papers that they lacked records. He pointed out that arrests occurred following the provincial minister’s press conference and alleged favouritism in the arrests made, asserting that the Director General of SBCA is responsible for the incident.
Zeeshan Rajpar further highlighted that the building owner, Rahim Bakhsh, lost his granddaughter and great-granddaughter in the incident. He rhetorically questioned why Bakhsh would allow them to stay in an unsafe building if he knew about its condition. Rajpar claimed that Bakhsh did not possess title documents and argued that all the charges against him are bailable.
Advocate Javed Chhatari contended that the accused are not responsible for the incident and argued that the IO lacks evidence against them. He noted that the building was constructed 50 years ago, and no one knows who granted permission for it. He described the arrests as unwarranted harassment without proper proof and urged the court to grant bail.
However, the court handed over the accused to the police on a 3-day physical remand.
