Gul Plaza fire termed 'culpable homicide'

The court questioned their connection to the case and asked why they had appeared before it. Advocate Abdul Qayyum Qadri said they were shop owners and wanted to be made parties to the case. The court observed that they were neither complainants nor witnesses and asked whether they had recorded statements under Section 164 of the Criminal Procedure Code.

The lawyer replied that they had not, saying they had initially considered the incident an accident but now believed it amounted to culpable homicide. He compared the case with the Baldia factory fire case, alleging that windows, doors and passageways at Gul Plaza had been blocked.

He said he represented the victims and would assist the prosecution. The court asked whether the shop owners had received any financial assistance. Their counsel replied that compensation had been provided only to tenants, while the owners had received nothing.

Accused Tanveer Pasta said the government would construct shops for the owners. The court questioned why the shop owners had not filed a constitutional petition. The shop owners' counsel said the investigation had not yet been completed and the charge sheet had not been approved.

He said they wanted to join the investigation as complainants or witnesses. Defence counsel Mahmood Hussain argued that the petition had been filed on behalf of only three shopkeepers and suggested that they either file a recovery suit or approach the committee responsible for providing financial assistance.

Investigating officer DSP Amir Warak said the shop owners had neither contacted him nor recorded statements. He said he had recorded statements from five people associated with Gul Plaza. The shop owners' counsel alleged that the funds distributed as compensation had been misappropriated on a large scale.

The court reserved its decision on the maintainability of the petition and adjourned the hearing until October 2. Meanwhile, an Additional District and Sessions Judge (South) extended the interim bail of the accused in the Gul Plaza fire case until October 3.

The accused - Tanveer Pasta, Ramzan, Naimatullah, Amin Ammar and Huzaifa - appeared before the court. The defence counsel argued that the accused had been regularly appearing before the court and requested confirmation of their interim bail.

The state prosecutor, however, said the final charge sheet in the case had not yet been approved. Investigating Officer Amir Warak also requested the court to cancel the accused's bail. It may be recalled that 72 people were killed in the Gul Plaza incident.