KARACHI — An additional district and sessions judge on Monday granted pre-arrest interim bail to five individuals—including an 11-year-old child and the local traders’ association president—nominated in the criminal investigation surrounding the catastrophic Gul Plaza fire.
The tragic inferno, which tore through the commercial complex on January 17, burned for nearly 48 hours before being fully extinguished, claiming at least 73 lives and completely destroying more than 1,100 wholesale and retail shops.
گل پلازہ آتشزدگی کیس: ایسوسی ایشن کے صدر سمیت پانچ ملزمان کی ضمانت منظور
تفصیل: https://t.co/qmOb7ageXY pic.twitter.com/XKQbGCQCRi— BBC News اردو (@BBCUrdu) July 6, 2026
Court Directives and Bail Terms
Presiding Judge Muhammad Aslam Shaikh issued a written order stating that the legal contentions raised by the defense required judicial consideration. In the interim, the court admitted the applicants to pre-arrest bail without touching the technical merits of the broader case.
The court split the financial conditions of the interim bail as follows:
- Traders and Management: Association President Tanveer Pasta, alongside union members Naimatullah, Ammar Ismail, and Muhammad Ramzan, were granted bail against a surety bond of Rs 500,000 each.
- Underage Accused: Eleven-year-old Huzaifa was granted interim bail against a minor surety bond of Rs 10,000.
The judge explicitly ordered the accused to cooperate fully with the relevant law enforcement branches and ordered the Investigating Officer (IO) to appear in person at the next scheduled hearing on July 14 with the complete police file.
The Prosecution Charge Sheet vs. Defense Arguments
The official police charge sheet, which formally labeled the suspects as absconders on Saturday, relies heavily on the eyewitness statements of 42 prosecution witnesses.
| Case Dimension | Prosecution Allegations (Charge Sheet) | Defense Counter-Arguments (Advocate Shaikh Jawaid Mir) |
| The Fire’s Origin | A 13-year-old witness (Aryan) testified that 11-year-old Huzaifa was playing with matchsticks inside his father’s artificial flower shop when the blaze ignited. | Huzaifa was merely present at the shop and not running it. His 24-year-old brother, Kamran, was the one supervising the premises on that day. |
| Alibis & Presence | Call Data Records (CDR) confirm shop owner Naimatullah was away during the outbreak, leaving the shop to his underage son. | Management committee member Muhammad Ameen was wrongfully named; he migrated to the United States six months before the disaster. |
| Building Safety & Negligence | Emergency exits were locked/blocked; there was an absence of functional fire hydrants, extinguishers, or emergency backup lighting systems. | The IO is scapegoating shop management to shield the criminal negligence of the SBCA, KMC, Civil Defence, and local fire departments. |
| Emergency Response | CDR analysis shows management failed to make timely emergency calls to the fire brigade or rescue networks as the flames spread. | The swift and immediate mitigation efforts of the Gul Plaza traders’ union actually saved thousands of lives inside the complex. |
Legal Standing
Defending the accused traders, Advocate Shaikh Jawaid Mir strongly argued before the sessions court that the police investigation deliberately concealed systemic administrative safety failures by state regulatory bodies to shift blame entirely onto local shop owners. He further maintained that under prevailing judicial precedents, pre-arrest bail cannot be withheld or used as a tool for preemptive punishment.
