On Thursday, Justice Omar Sial’s commission investigating the Mir Raza Ali murder case criticized the first investigating officer for minimal effort in probing the matter and improper handling of evidence. The commission held him responsible for destroying crucial evidence and deemed him unfit for police service. Additionally, it directed Ahmed Bhardey, a business partner of the victim, to meet with the victim’s family and respond to their questions privately before submitting an affidavit to the commission.
Written locally by qwen2.5:14b on 2026-09-18,
using this article's own text rather than the other coverage of the
same event (that is the story summary below).
• Justice Sial says the investigating officer tried to make it a ‘suicide’ case
• Holds him responsible for destroying evidence; calls him unfit for police service
• Asks a victim’s business partner to meet Raza’s family, answer their questions and submit the replies to commission
KARACHI:
asserted
him → say → commission
The commission formed to investigate the circumstances and possible negligence in the Mir Raza Ali murder case on Thursday deplored that the first investigating officer had hardly made any effort to probe the matter and did not fulfil legal formalities during the investigation.
asserted
officer → form → investigation
It also noted that most of the paperwork and procedures were carried out by police officers other than the former IO, including the inquest report, collection of CCTV footage and questioning of suspects.
asserted
most → note → suspects
The one-member commission headed by Justice Omar Sial of the Sindh High Court further noted that the police had improperly interrogated people as 33 persons’ statements were recorded out of which the first IO had only questioned 10 individuals while he had also kept the samples taken after the autopsy in his custody for several days.
asserted
he → head → days
It said that since some allegations were levelled against Karachi Police chief Azad Khan and DIG Amir Farooqui — who is heading the current investigation team — during the testimony of the police surgeon, the commission would send questionnaires to both the senior police officers and asked the counsel for the aggrieved family, Jibran Nasir, to submit questions, if any, in this regard by Monday.
asserted
commission → say → Monday
The victim’s business partner Ahmed Bhardey along his lawyer also appeared on Thursday after the commission summoned him for giving interviews to some journalists and claiming that he had much more to tell, but the commission had not allowed him to do so.
asserted
him → appear → more
Justice Sial directed Bhardey to meet the family members of the victim privately and answer all their questions and also submitted the same before the commission with his affidavit while the commission also warned his lawyer from scandalising it.
asserted
commission → direct → it
The first IO of the case Inspector Shabbir Ahmed Laghari appeared and deposed that he had joined the police in 2002, investigated 20 to 25 cases so far and he was assigned the investigation of the case on July 28 at around 3:20pm by the senior investigating officer (SIO) of Ferozabad police station Arshad Javed.
Thereafter, the former IO deposed that he had visited the victim’s house, went to three or four places in the neighbourhood, but no footage could be obtained and on July 29, SHO Ferozabad Adeel Afzal and the SIO had informed him about recovery of the victim’s body, which was already shifted to hospital.
uncertain
which → appear → hospital
He further testified that he had visited the hospital where ASI Nadeem Mughal of Gulistan-i-Jauhar police station had carried out the formalities of Section 174 (inquest report) of the criminal procedure code and also collected samples from the medico-legal officer and handed the same over to him (Laghari) on July 30.
asserted
Mughal → testify → July
He said that the following day, he along with SIO Ferozabad and police staff had visited the crime scene, where the body was found, it was not secured as the crime scene unit had yet to arrive there.
asserted
unit → say → scene
Inspector Laghari also stated that a blood-stained flowerpot was recovered at the scene and the same was sent to the laboratory for analysis, but he did not prepare the seizure and inspection memos.
When asked as to why crime scene was not timely secured, he asserted that it was the responsibility of the Gulistan-i-Jauhar police station to protect the same and added that a bullet casing was found from the crime scene by the then SHO Gulistan-i-Jauhar Kamran Qureshi.
Justice Sial asked him as to why SHO Adeel Afzal was taking more interest in the case as he had collected footages and visited the crime scene on July 28 despite the fact that he was not authorised to do so as it was the responsibility of the IO.
asserted
it → state → IO
The first IO replied that the SHO often appeared to be active in order to assist the investigators as the investigation section lacked resources and manpower.
asserted
section → reply → resources
He conceded that all footage was provided to him by the SHO, but seizure memo was not prepared since the same were shared on the WhatsApp.
asserted
same → concede → WhatsApp
At this juncture, the commission observed that he has done zero work regarding investigation of the case so far and he should not be serving in police for such conduct.
asserted
he → observe → conduct
When Justice Sial asked Inspector Laghari as to why the samples collected during autopsy on July 29, had been submitted to the laboratory on Aug 6, he replied that he had received the samples from ASI Mughal on July 30 and kept in his personal possession till Aug 6 instead of Malkhala of the police station due to want of post-mortem report since samples could not be deposited without the report.
He also asserted that the police had faced difficulties in obtaining the autopsy report and eventually, such report was received on Aug 3, on the following day the laboratory was found closed, the staff of lab had raised some objections on Aug 5 and therefore, the samples were deposited on Aug 6 after addressing such objections.
uncertain
samples → ask → objections
He further said that he had not prepared seizure memo in this regard.
asserted
he → say → regard
When the commission asked him that he did not find anything suspicious about the individuals grilled by police including gardeners, a rickshaw driver or others among 33 persons.
asserted
he → ask → persons
He asserted that as per the nursery employees, the body could not have been thrown from any direction at the crime scene and apparently, he might have walked there himself.
uncertain
he → assert → scene
Inspector Laghari also attempted to defend the version of gardeners and claimed that they might not have heard the gunshot despite being close to the crime scene due to traffic buzz.
uncertain
they → attempt → buzz
At this juncture, Justice Sial came down hard on him and said that he was also trying to make it a case of suicide and hardly made any effort to probe the case or collect evidence while collection of footages and codal formalities were carried out by other police officers.
asserted
collection → come → officers
The commission also noted that the first IO had not prepared various important memos, many entries were also not made in daily diary of the police station and violated procedures of investigation.
asserted
entries → note → investigation
It further said that the statements of these 33 persons were not recorded properly as key questions were not asked while the statements of gardeners were hardly containing 10 lines.
asserted
statements → say → lines
Justice Sial said that former IO had not obtained DVR as videos were only available in his mobile phone which was not admissible whereas all the witnesses had given a different account while he was telling an entirely different story and also equally responsible for destroying the evidence.
asserted
he → say → evidence
Inspector Laghari replied that he had faced difficulties during investigation since he had fallen ill and his daughter was admitted to the hospital during these days.
However, Inspector Laghari said he had never stated that it was a case of suicide and he had incorporated Sections 302 and 201 of the Pakistan Penal Code in the case.
asserted
he → reply → case
The phone of victim was recovered by SHO Adeel Afzal, the memo was prepared by ASI Faisal Nadeem and the phone as well as smartwatch of the victim had been sent for analysis on Aug 12.
asserted
phone → recover → Aug
Thereafter, he said that the investigation of the case was transferred to DSP Siraj Lashari and all the relevant record was handed over to him.
asserted
record → say → him
Adjourning the hearing till Sept 21, the commission said that it was issuing notices to various police officers who were part of the first and second investigation teams to record their deposition next week.
asserted
who → adjourn → deposition
The Aporia
