Challan holds Gul Plaza administration responsible for fire, exonerates govt bodies

It was noted that during the investigation, officials obtained various pieces of evidence, including CCTV footage, USB drives, NVR and DVR devices. The challan also noted that a forensic report found no explosive material in the items examined, nor any traces of flammable liquid.

However, the report identified residual particles left behind after the fire in certain items. Read More:Gul Plaza owners cry foul. Further, the challan raised questions over the fire safety arrangements at Gul Plaza, citing alleged negligence by the building's administration, and included statements regarding the safety arrangements present in the shops and the building itself.

Police submitted the challan in court to pursue further legal action. The case included Sections 285, 322, 337-H(ii), 427 and 436 of the Pakistan Penal Code. Meanwhile,, Tanveer Pasta, Joint Secretary Muhammad Ramzan, Naimatullah and Gul Plaza Association Vice President Ammar Ismailremained on bail, while the accused named Amin had been absconding.

It was also noted that 11-year-old Huzaifa's name was omitted from the list. His challan was reportedly submitted separately in the juvenile case. Along with a list of 85 witnesses submitted alongside the challan, the document also stated that 72 people lost their lives in the Gul Plaza fire.

The court adjourned the hearing until September 9. Read More:Gul Plaza demolition yet to begin. On January 17, 2026, a fire at the Gul Plaza shopping mall in Karachi killed over 70 people and injured over 20.

The Sindh government formed a single-member judicial commission, led by Sindh High Court Justice Agha Faisal, on February 4 to probe the cause of the tragedy. The commission prepared a report on the conflagration, which the Sindh Home Department later released.

According tothe report, Gul Plaza had continued to operate as a commercial building despite being hazardous and in violation of fire-safety requirements. It concluded that responsibility could not be pinned on a single institution or government, but lied in the collective failure of systems meant to identify risks, enforce safety rules, fight fires and rescue people in emergencies.

The commission also found that the dangers at the plaza were known well before the tragedy. Civil Defence inspections in 2024 and 2025 had identified the absence of fire-safety equipment, the presence of inflammable commercial material and deficiencies in exit routes.

Yet, the identified shortcomings were not rectified and no effective legal action followed. The building's management was also held responsible for failing to rectify known defects. Its regularised plan provided for 1,102 shops, while 1,153 shops were actually operating in the building, with large quantities of inflammable commercial goods stored inside.

Overall, the commission rejected the idea that the tragedy could be attributed to one department, one institution or one government. It found that the legal powers, audit mechanisms, building-control authorities, firefighting services and emergency-response institutions existed across different periods.