Prosecution seeks inclusion of Gul Plaza inquiry report in charge sheet

KARACHI: The prosecution has once again returned the charge sheet submitted by the investigating officer in the Gul Plaza case, as he failed to include the judicial commission’s report and to remove several defects earlier pointed out by the prosecution.

In his third attempt to submit the charge sheet, the IO had fixed the responsibility on four union officials — Tanveer Pasta, Amar Ismail, Muhammad Ramazan and Muhammad Ameen — as well as the owner of an artificial flower shop, Naimatullah and his teenage son, placing them as absconders under Section 512 of the Criminal Procedure Code in the report.

He had charged them for committing offences under Sections 285 (negligent conduct with respect to fire or combustible matter), 322 (punishment for qatl-bis-sabab), 337-H (punishment for hurt by rash or negligent act), 436 (mischief by fire or explosive substance with intent to destroy house, etc.), 427 (mischief with intent to destroy or make unsafe a decked vessel or one of twenty tons burden) of the Pakistan Penal Code.

However, despite the defects having been pointed out to the IO and directed to rectify them, he submitted the charge sheet to the prosecution without removing them. Therefore, the prosecution returned the report and directed the IO to resubmit it after removing the defects and incorporating the suggestions made in the report of the Justice Agha Faisal-led judicial commission that had been submitted to the provincial government.

Returns the document to IO for a third time after he fails to remove defects

A source familiar with the matter told Dawn that even after six months, the IO failed to provide reasons for the delay in submitting the charge sheet, as well as explain why he did not include the names of officials from the relevant regulatory departments and former union officials who were allegedly involved in the unauthorised construction on the plot.

The source further said that the IO did not include the findings of the joint investigation team or the judicial commission, adding that he also failed to obtain reports from the relevant departments, including the Sindh Building Control Authority, rescue services, and civil defence, to ascertain the structural viability of the building.

The IO did not fix criminal liability on each suspect; instead, he generalised the responsibility in the earlier chargesheet, the source said, adding that the IO did not obtain the documents related to the plaza.

In the charge sheet which was returned to the IO, he had claimed that, according to a forensic report from Punjab, no explosive or ignitable substances were found. However, he added that the fire erupted due to the negligence of the owner of Shop No. 193 — an artificial flower shop — who had left his 11-year-old son, Huzaifa, alone at the shop. The minor boy was later allegedly playing with matchsticks when the fire suddenly broke out in the shop and subsequently engulfed the entire plaza in flames.

The report added that the Gul Plaza lacked fire safety equipment. It further revealed during the investigation that no union officials had contacted rescue services when the fire erupted, nor had they prevented the teenage boy from running the shop in the absence of his father.

It added that the electricity was disconnected by K-Electric on the request of the union president, which plunged the plaza into darkness, trapping people inside as well as the gates were closed at that time and were not opened on time, due to which 72 people lost their lives, eight sustained injuries, and the plaza was completely gutted in the fire.

The report also added that 64 bodies had been handed over to their legal heirs.

A manslaughter case was registered on the complaint of the SHO of the Nabi Bux police station against unknown persons.

Published in Dawn, July 4th, 2026