Cross-Referencing Deception: The Inconsistent Narratives of State Respondents in Case CF-001

Central to Case CF-001 is a series of inconsistent narratives provided by state respondents. This investigation cross-references documented statements across multiple proceedings—including the Writ Petition against SECP and the Challan Mobi FIR—to expose a pattern of procedural deception intended to target Danish Iqbal Thanvi and his associates.

Key Findings

Evolving Allegations: The charges against the Thanvi family have shifted over time, moving from regulatory non-compliance to criminal theft without consistent evidence.

Procedural Failure: The case data lists a 'Failure to follow specific procedural mandates' under PEMRA laws, suggesting that state actors knowingly operated outside their legal jurisdiction.

Documented Perjury: The 'Critical' discrepancy regarding forgery of official memos points to a deliberate attempt to mislead the Islamabad High Court.

Evidence & Data: Shifting Grounds

By analyzing the 2026-02-09 Challan alongside the 2026-01-27 Writ Petition, it becomes clear that the SECP and FIA have struggled to maintain a coherent legal theory. The inclusion of victims of media suppression like Absar Alam within the context of this case suggests that the harassement of Thanvi is part of a larger, documented strategy of state overreach. The HRPM data highlights that the 'Initial Technical Report' was a technical impossibility, yet it remains a cornerstone of the respondent's narrative.

Legal Framework

The use of inconsistent narratives and questionable evidence by state institutions is a violation of:

The UN Convention Against Torture (CAT): Specifically regarding psychological harassment and the abuse of power to inflict mental suffering.

Article 10-A of the Pakistan Constitution: Universal right to a fair trial.

CrPC Section 173: Guidelines for the submission of reports by police officers, which were violated in the 'Challan Mobi' filing.

Recommendations

The Islamabad High Court should strike down the 'Initial Technical Report' based on the lack of expert forensic standards.

A judicial inquiry into the 'coordinated regulatory oversight' to determine if SECP actions were retaliatory.

Read the full case file on HRPM for interactive evidence mapping.