- Vendor Abdullah says Mir Raza owed him Rs7.5m.
- SDPO denies telling family death was suicide.
- Lawyer raises questions over evidence handling.
KARACHI: The judicial commission investigating the Mir Raza Ali case recorded the statements of his partner Ahmed Bharde and an online taxi driver.
During questioning, the one-member commission headed by Justice Omar Sial of the Sindh High Court asked Bharde about the partnership agreement, attempts to access Mir Raza’s smartwatch, the change of a mobile number, and his efforts to retrieve his account from the watch through the deceased’s sister.
Bharde told the commission that notifications on Mir Raza’s smartwatch contained details of payments involving several people. He said delays in payments had caused problems.
Mir Raza, an IBA graduate and businessman, was found dead in Karachi’s Gulistan-e-Jauhar a day after he went missing on July 28.
The final postmortem report confirmed by police on August 31, has conclusively ruled out suicide, confirming that the young businessman died as a result of a gunshot wound.
The commission questioned Bharde over his interaction with Mir Raza’s family, observing that he appeared to be asking them for money rather than offering reassurance.
It also questioned him about access to CCTV footage from the shop, alleging that he had extracted two-second clips of his choice and provided them to police. Bharde said he had initially received only a short video.
The commission also asked Bharde why he had obtained pre-arrest bail. He replied that Mir Raza’s relatives had been asking about him at the hospital and had said they would deal with Ahmed after the funeral.
SDPO denies telling family death was suicide
The commission later summoned SDPO Arshad Afridi to the rostrum for his statement. It asked whether he had met Mir Raza’s family during the night of 30-31 July. Afridi said he had gone with SHO Ferozabad Adeel Afzal.
The commission questioned what authority Afridi had to visit the family and provide information when he was not the investigating officer. Afridi replied that he had accompanied the SHO.
When asked whether he had told the family that Mir Raza’s death was a suicide, Afridi denied making such a statement. He also denied telling the family that marks had been found on the front of Mir Raza’s chest.
The family’s lawyer, Advocate Jibran Nasir, told the commission that the SHO had shown the family videos on his mobile phone. Afridi said he believed the video shown was footage of a pistol being taken from the shop.
Mother says police showed family footages
Mir Raza’s mother told the commission that the SHO had shown videos from the shop and other locations, while police officers had told the family that the footage showed the deceased leaving alone.
The commission also summoned the deceased’s vendor, Abdullah, who said the dessert shop was his brother’s business and that he supplied chocolate to it.
When questioned about his presence at Mir Raza’s home and his access to Mir Raza’s room, Abdullah said he had gone there after asking the deceased’s mother, with his mother and sister present. He denied searching the room.
Mir Raza’s mother said that Abdullah had been his financial adviser but had never disclosed anything to the family.
Nasir told the commission that Abdullah’s phone had remained switched off for two and a half hours after he spoke to Mir Raza. Abdullah said he used his phone extensively during the daytime.
Abdullah also told the commission that he had been held in custody for 36 hours.
The commission subsequently summoned SHO Gulistan-e-Jauhar Kamran Qureshi and head muharrir Zeeshan to its next hearing.
Proceedings were adjourned until 7 September.
‘Problem’
Speaking to the media after the hearing, Nasir, counsel for the deceased’s parents, alleged that samples recovered from the body were not submitted for six days and said the decision in the case had not reviewed any documents.
Meanwhile, Khalid Mumtaz, counsel for Ahmed Bharde and Abdullah, said the commission had questioned Bharde in a manner suggesting he was an accused, although both his clients had appeared before the commission as witnesses.
Mumtaz said Mir Raza had travelled to Islamabad once or twice previously and Ahmed had not initially taken the matter seriously. He added that the deceased’s father had been angry.
He said they would respond to the commission’s findings once they were issued. Mumtaz also said Mir Raza had been repaying a Rs45 million debt owed by his father.
According to Mumtaz, Mir Raza’s father’s phone had also been sought for investigation, but he had not provided it. He questioned why the father had not contacted his son between 29 and 31 July.
Mumtaz further said the deceased had told Abdullah several days earlier that his father had “created a problem”.
