Passengers to/from Thailand Urged to Check Flights as Middle East Airspace Closed

PESHAWAR: Two police personnel sustained minor injuries after an improvised explosive device (IED) exploded near a police vehicle in Peshawar on Sunday, officials said. The blast occurred near Pir Zakorhi Bridge, close to the Peshawar-Islamabad Motorway toll plaza, where a police van was travelling on routine duty. The explosion damaged the vehicle and left the driver and a police constable with minor injuries. Rescue teams and law enforcement officials quickly reached the site and shifted the injured officers to a nearby hospital for medical treatment. Authorities said both policemen were in stable condition and suffered only minor wounds. The Bomb Disposal Unit (BDU) launched a search operation in the surrounding area after the explosion. Initial findings suggested that the explosive device had been planted along the roadside in a green belt and was detonated as the police vehicle passed by. Security personnel thoroughly scanned the area to ensure no additional explosive devices were present. Police cordoned off the scene and began collecting evidence to determine those responsible for the attack. An investigation has been launched, while officials are examining the nature of the explosive and the method used in the incident. The latest attack comes amid a surge in militant violence across Khyber Pakhtunkhwa. In recent days, several security personnel have lost their lives in separate terrorist attacks and counterterrorism operations in different parts of the province.

MULTAN: In a significant development in a cryptocurrency fraud case, the Lahore High Court’s Multan Bench has granted interim bail to Hammad Ali and other co-petitioners, observing that the prosecution has, at this stage, failed to produce sufficient material linking them to the alleged electronic fraud or the freezing of the complainant’s cryptocurrency accounts. Justice Tariq Saleem Sheikh issued the detailed 15-page judgment while hearing the interim bail petitions, emphasizing that the investigation remains underway and that the available record does not disclose prima facie evidence of cheating, fraud, or forgery against the petitioners. According to the judgment, the allegations contained in the First Information Report (FIR) do not appear, at first glance, to establish the offences alleged against the accused. The court noted that no evidence had been placed on record demonstrating the petitioners’ involvement in electronic fraud or showing that they played any role in freezing the complainant’s cryptocurrency accounts. The court further observed that it is the responsibility of the investigating officer to independently examine the role of each individual account holder before reaching any conclusion regarding criminal liability. The judgment stressed that investigations must be conducted impartially and based on verifiable evidence rather than assumptions. Justice Sheikh also noted that the petitioners had already provided the investigating officer with the records requested during the course of the investigation. The investigating officer, the court said, remains free to obtain additional documents from relevant financial institutions or other authorities if further verification is required. The judgment also outlines the complainant’s version of events. According to court records, the complainant initially invested Rs5 million in cryptocurrency. He claimed that a subsequent crash in the cryptocurrency market caused him heavy financial losses. The complainant further alleged that, in an effort to recover those losses, he sold household belongings, his vehicle, and gold jewellery to make additional investments in cryptocurrency. He later claimed that his cryptocurrency accounts were frozen, preventing him from accessing his digital assets. According to the FIR, the complainant then began withdrawing funds through the cryptocurrency accounts of friends. He alleged that the accused obtained cryptocurrency through bank accounts but failed to return the corresponding amount owed to him. After reviewing the available material, the Lahore High Court concluded that there was currently insufficient prima facie evidence directly implicating the petitioners in the alleged offences. On that basis, the court allowed their interim bail petitions while making it clear that the investigation would continue in accordance with the law. The ruling highlights the judiciary’s emphasis on evidence-based investigations in complex financial and cryptocurrency-related disputes, while leaving the final determination of criminal responsibility to the outcome of the ongoing investigation.