On Monday, a district and sessions court in Karachi granted bail to five adults and an 11-year-old boy implicated in the Gul Plaza fire case, a tragedy that resulted in 72 deaths on January 17. The accused include Gul Plaza Management Committee President Tanveer Pasta, Vice President Ammar Ismail, General Secretary Muhammad Ameen, Joint Secretary Muhammad Ramazan, and Naimatullah, the owner of the artificial flower shop where the fire reportedly began.
The court ordered each adult accused to provide surety bonds amounting to Rs500,000. The juvenile, Huzaifa, was granted bail against a surety bond of Rs10,000. However, the judge questioned why Huzaifa’s bail application was submitted to the sessions court instead of the juvenile court, noting that a separate court exists for minors. The defense counsel explained that since the charges are connected to the same case, the application was filed in the sessions court.
During the hearing, the judge repeatedly challenged the prosecution to clarify the specific roles of the accused in the incident. He questioned the relevance of the child’s involvement and sought details about the allegations against the other defendants. The defense argued that the investigation was superficial, criticizing the police for concluding the case in just half a page despite the loss of 72 lives. They also contended that no civilian institution had been held accountable, accusing the administration of shielding itself while implicating the victims.
The judge observed that the charge sheet had been returned twice by the prosecution due to objections but was resubmitted without addressing those issues. The defense highlighted that the main accusation against Tanveer Pasta was that he contacted K-Electric to cut off electricity after the fire started. They argued that this action did not establish criminal liability, particularly in a time when mobile phones with flashlights are widely available.
It was also noted that approximately 350 people were rescued from the building during the fire and that one official lost his life while performing rescue operations. The judge remarked on the gravity of the charges under Section 322 of the Pakistan Penal Code, which deals with manslaughter and carries significant implications, especially regarding compensation. The hearing was subsequently adjourned for further proceedings.
In a significant development last week, the investigation officer submitted a charge sheet naming six individuals, including 11-year-old Huzaifa, his father Naimatullah, and four management committee office-bearers. The fire destroyed 1,153 shops and injured eight people. The charge sheet alleges that the fire originated in the artificial flower shop after Huzaifa allegedly played with matchsticks and ignited combustible material. It further states that Naimatullah often left the shop under his son’s care.
Statements under Section 164 of the Criminal Procedure Code were recorded from four eyewitnesses, including a 13-year-old boy who claimed to have seen Huzaifa playing with matches shortly before the blaze. Call data records indicated Naimatullah was not present at the shop when the fire started. The investigation also held the Gul Plaza management committee responsible for safety failures that exacerbated the disaster.
The charge sheet highlighted that the committee ignored the presence of an underage child operating the shop and that emergency exits and main gates were locked during the fire, hindering evacuation. Additional safety lapses included insufficient fire extinguishers, a lack of a functional fire hydrant system, and no emergency backup lighting inside the building. Furthermore, the report stated that Tanveer Pasta’s call to K-Electric to cut electricity worsened the situation by plunging the building into darkness, complicating evacuation efforts.
The committee members were also accused of failing to promptly notify fire and rescue services, with call data records showing no emergency calls from them after the fire began. Forensic analysis by the Punjab Forensic Science Agency found no evidence of explosives, confirming the fire was accidental rather than caused by an explosion.
The adult accused face charges under Sections 285 (negligent conduct with respect to fire or combustible matter), 322 (manslaughter), 337-H (hurt caused by rash or negligent act), 436 (mischief by fire), and 34 (common intention) of the Pakistan Penal Code. The prosecution had earlier returned the charge sheet twice due to procedural shortcomings and the absence of the judicial commission’s report, which was later allowed to be submitted separately. The charge sheet against Huzaifa will be filed in the juvenile court.
