HYDERABAD: A small group of charged lawyers, from among scores of others, managed to break into the office of Hyderabad SSP Dr Farrukh Ali during an hours-long protest on Tuesday by the legal fraternity demanding removal of the Bhit ai Nagar SHO.

The SHO had on Monday booked Advocate Ali Raza Bozdar, who hailed from Tando Allahyar, for using a car bearing tinted glasses and a fancy number plate. When the SHO did not oblige the advocate to quash the FIR, a large number of charged lawyers proceeded to the SSP`s office and demanded removal of the SHO and quashment of the FIR. However, the SSP also did not give a hearing to the protesting lawyers on the matter prompting some of them to force their way into his office.

Some other lawyers also climbed over the SSP`s vehicle while he was presentinhis ofhce.

The agitating lawyer kept raising slogans against police for registering the case under sections 468, 471, 420, 170 and 171 of the Pakistan Penal Code (PPC) vide crime No. 25/25.

The complainant, ASI Maqsood Ali Sahito, stated in the FIR that occupant [Advocate Bozdar] of the Mehran car escaped during action against him, therefore, the vehicle bearing a fancy number plate and tinted glasses was impounded.

Advocate Bozdar could not be reached by his mobile phone, which was found switched off.

Contradicting the complainant`s claim, High Court Bar Association (HCBA) President Ayaz Tunio, told the media that Advocate Bozdar was taken to the Bhitai Nagar police station on Monday but was let off upon his [Tunio`s] intervention. However, the FIR was registered, Tunio added.

On Tuesday afternoon, a group of lawyers proceeded to the SSP`s office to record their protest against `high-handedness of the SHO` and to demand his suspension. The number of protesting lawyers kept increasing over the next one hour but SSP Dr Farrukh Ali declined to receive their representatives or to hear them.

The SSP dismissed the protesters` demand to suspend the SHO but they remained present there till late in the evening. In an apparent bid to force them to leave the SSP office, lights were switched off. The staff also left the office.

In their first bid earlier in the day, the charged lawyers tried to enter the inner side of the office but DSPs Kashif Qadri, Inayat Qureshi, Iftikhar Buriro and some other officers present inside had foiled their attempt.

Hyderabad District Bar Association (HDBA) President Ziaudidn Sheikh and General Secretary Shakir Shar also joined in the protest.

SSP Dr Farrukh told Dawn it was not the advocate alone who was booked under these sections, but as many as 36 such FIRs had been registered for com-mitting such offences. Those booked included even the superintendent of Jamshoro SSP`s office. Besides, he added, several hundred people were challaned for violating traffic rules. He said police would submit a report in a court of law to decide the agitating lawyer`s matter.

Meanwhile, the impounded car was handed over to the HCBA president on Tuesday evening. Tunio said that he had to speak to the Sindh IGP to seek his intervention into the matter.

`Earlier, I had avoided going to the SSP office when he declined to meet us in the presence agitating lawyers, he said, and claimed that the SSP had also threatened to get an FIR registered against the agitating lawyers under the Anti-Terrorism Act. `I told him that lawyers will obtain bail from courts if such a false case was registered,` Tunio said.

The HCBA leaders, Ayaz Tunio and Irfan Bughio, had spoken to the agitating lawyers and advised them to hold a general body meeting at the Bar, instead of holding the protest. Manylawyers left with them but many others, led by former HDBA leaders K.B.

Leghari and PTPs Faisal Mughal, continued the protest.

`We have been telling the SSP to visit the Bar and help resolve lawyers` issues relating to police, but he [the SSP] is unwilling to meet us,` Mughal said. He vowed to widen the scope of this protest tomorrow (Wednesday).

SSP Dr Farrukh alleged that PTPs Faisal Mughal was settling personal scores with him for not accepting his request of additional police guards.

According to the SSP, Mughal had demanded three police guards insisting that his wife was also serving in the police force and that`s why he had previously been having three guards.

The SSP said he did not accede to Mughal`s request as it was not justified. Mughal rejected the SSP`s claim about settling personalscores, stating that the police guard deployed near his Journalist Colony residence had died and he had just demanded his replacement.