Prosecution 'returns' police charge sheet again in Gul Plaza fire case
Web Desk
|
3 Jul 2026
The prosecution has once again returned the police charge sheet in the Gul Plaza fire tragedy case during proceedings at the City Court in Karachi.
According to sources, prosecutors declared the police investigation incomplete and flawed, pointing out several serious shortcomings in the case file. Officials are reported to have convened a meeting under the DIG South Karachi to review the situation.
Prosecution sources said that issues previously highlighted in the charge sheet had still not been addressed in the revised report submitted by police.
It was further stated that the judicial commission’s report was not attached to the charge sheet, while no proper investigation was conducted into why emergency exits were locked or who was responsible for blocking access routes within the building. Allegations regarding the construction of additional shops in place of approved single units were also reportedly overlooked.
Sources added that relevant authorities, including the Sindh Building Control Authority, Karachi Metropolitan Corporation and the fire brigade, should have been included in the investigation but were not properly taken on board.
Police had submitted a four-page charge sheet naming six individuals, including an 11-year-old boy, as responsible for the fire incident. Those named include Tanveer Pasta, Huzifa, Ammar Ismail, Ameen, Muhammad Ramzan and Nematullah. The charge sheet also lists more than 60 witnesses.
According to sources, statements of four individuals, including the 11-year-old Huzifa, have already been recorded in court. It is also claimed that Huzifa admitted to playing with matchsticks during the hearing.
The charge sheet further states that Tanveer Pasta is a union president, Ammar Ismail the vice president, Ameen the general secretary, Muhammad Ramzan the joint secretary, while Nematullah is the owner of the shop where the fire reportedly broke out.
Further proceedings in the case are expected as the investigation is once again reviewed.
Comments
0 comment