Daily Times

The Supreme Court of Pakistan (SC) on Thursday directed Rao Anwar to resubmit a review petition seeking the removal of his name from the Exit Control List (ECL).

A three-member SC bench, headed by Justice Umar Ata Bandial, heard the petition filed by Anwar, the former Malir SSP, who is accused of the extrajudicial murder of Naqeebullah Mehsud in Karachi.

Malik Naeem Iqbal, Anwar’s counsel, told the court that even though his client had been granted bail in the case, his name had been placed on the ECL.

Addressing Iqbal, Justice Bandial remarked: “You say he is on bail, therefore his name should be removed from the ECL. There is a procedure for removing names from ECL. You are a police officer. Why do you want to go outside the country? Do you have any business outside the country?”

Iqbal replied that the family of his client was settled abroad. “He has to go meet his family,” he said. Justice Bandial inquired whether any other FIR or inquiry was also running against Anwar.

Justice Faisal Arab remarked that there were reports of several more inquiries continuing against Rao Anwar.

Former Malir SSP had submitted review petition, seeking the removal of his name from ECL

Faisal Siddiqui, the counsel representing Naqeebullah Mehsood’s father, said that an inquiry regarding assets beyond means was also underway against Rao Anwar. Justice Umar Ata Bandial remarked that there were several cases of this nature.

Anwar’s counsel admitted that several things were running with regard to extra judicial killings case.

The court then ordered Rao Anwar to refile the review petition along with the earlier decision of the court and adjourned the hearing of the case for an indefinite period.

In his review petition, Anwar had stated that the court had not noticed an important aspect of the matter that the petitioner’s involvement in the crime was far-fetched and was based upon assumptions.

“There is no likelihood of trial concluding in near future inasmuch as even charge has not been framed so far and there are about seventy witnesses. Therefore, the impugned order has the effect of indefinite restriction on movement of the petitioner, which is a gross violation of his fundamental rights.”