11-year-old to face trial for igniting Gul Plaza fire in Karachi

• Another prosecutor greenlights IO to file charge sheet in court without including judicial commission’s report
• Four members of shopping plaza’s management committee and owner of artificial flower shop will also face trial

KARACHI: An 11-year-old boy is set to be tried in a court of law for igniting a fire at the Gul Plaza Shopping Centre on Jan 17 that resulted in the deaths of 72 persons.

This was stated in a charge sheet filed in court by the investigating officer of the Gul Plaza fire case through in charge district prosecutor Abdul Razzaq Gujjar on Saturday.

Only on Friday, another prosecutor had returned the charge sheet to the IO, asking him to remove certain defects he pointed out and include the report of a judicial commission.

However, prosecutor Gujjar gave the go-ahead to the IO to file the charge sheet as the judicial commission’s report can be filed at a later stage.

According to the charge sheet, 72 people had lost their lives, eight sustained injuries and 1,153 shops were gutted in the devastating fire.

The IO named six persons — 11-year-old boy, Huzaifa; his father, Naimatullah, the owner of an artificial flower shop; Gul Plaza Management Committee members Tanveer Pasta; Amar Ismail; Muhammad Ramazan; and Muhammad Ameen — as accused persons.

All the nominated persons have been shown as absconders in the charge sheet. The IO has listed 42 prosecution witnesses in the case.

According to the charge sheet, several prosecution witnesses had recorded their statements under Section 164 of the criminal procedure code before a judicial magistrate. One of them, 13-year-old Aryan, deposed that he was present at his friend Huzaifa’s shop at Gul Plaza and Huzaifa was playing with matchsticks when the fire suddenly broke out in the shop.

It said that his testimony was also supported by two other eyewitnesses, Mohammad Talha and Hamza Amir, who deposed that Huzaifa’s father, Naimatullah, used to hand over the shop to his underage son.

It said as per the call data record (CDR), Naimatullah was also not present at the shop at the time of the incident.

The charge sheet stated that an underage boy was running the shop and the officials of the management committee had failed to take any action against Naimatullah or restrain him from allowing his juvenile son to operate the shop alone.

The charge sheet also stated that the exits points of the building were locked or blocked, there were insufficient fire extinguishers and fire safety equipment, no fire hydrant system was installed and no arrangement of emergency back-up lights as electricity was disconnected after the fire broke out and engulfed the building.

It further said that as per the CDR of the management committee members, they had not made any call to the fire brigade or other rescue and emergency services and had shown negligence on their part.

The IO also stated in the charge sheet that since Huzaifa is a minor, a charge sheet against him was being filed before a juvenile court.

Other suspects have been charged with the offences under Sections 285 (negligent conduct with respect to fire or combustible matter), 322 (manslaughter), 337-H (punishment for hurt by rash or negligent act), 436 (mischief by fire or explosive substance with intent to destroy house, etc.) and 34 (common intention) of the Pakistan Penal Code.

Earlier, IO Inspector Pervez Ahmed Bhutto had attempted thrice to submit the charge sheet, but the prosecution — deputy district prosecutors Muhammad Arif Sitai and Asadullah Maitlo — had pointed out defects and directed him to rectify them.

After scrutinising the charge sheet and other relevant record, the prosecution had raised objections for not including the names of officials from the relevant regulatory departments as well as those belonging to the previous union.

They had also asked the IO to obtain certified copies of the judicial commission’s report as well as the findings of a joint investigation team constituted by the Sindh government to probe the incident and to place the same on record along with the charge sheet.

However, the IO filed the charge sheet without removing these defects or obtaining report of the judicial commission and JIT.

Published in Dawn, July 5th, 2026 ...