December 28, 2025 06:29 am (IST)
Follow us:
facebook-white sharing button
twitter-white sharing button
instagram-white sharing button
youtube-white sharing button
CBI moves Supreme Court challenging Kuldeep Sengar's relief in Unnao rape case | Music under attack: Islamist mob attacks James concert with bricks, stones in Bangladesh, dozens hurt | Christmas vandalism sparks mass arrests in Raipur; Assam acts too with crackdown on 'religious intolerance' | BJP's VV Rajesh becomes Thiruvananthapuram Mayor after party topples Left's 45-year-rule in city corporation | ‘I can’t bear the pain’: Indian-origin father of three dies after 8-hour hospital wait in Canada hospital | Janhvi Kapoor, Kajal Aggarwal, Jaya Prada slam brutal lynching in Bangladesh, call out ‘selective outrage’ | Tarique Rahman returns to Bangladesh after 17 years | Shocking killing inside AMU campus: teacher shot dead during evening walk | Horror on Karnataka highway: sleeper bus bursts into flames after truck crash, 9 killed | PM Modi attends Christmas service at Delhi church, sends message of love and compassion
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.