The CDA Stray Dog Incident: Inconsistent Narratives and the Prosecution of Parishay Khan

The case of Parishay Khan vs CDA Islamabad (HRPM-MLORJ30M) centers on criminal charges arising from an incident at the Stray Dog Population Control Centre. This investigation highlights the inconsistencies between the narrative provided by the accused, Farzana Bashir Marwart, and the documented events leading to FIR 1626/25 at Shahzad Town Police Station.

Key Findings

Submission of Challan: On February 20, 2026, the Challan U/S 173 Cr. P.C was submitted for Farzana Bashir, yet procedural gaps remain in the timeline of the alleged incident.

Social Media vs. Legal Record: The involvement of Twitter user 'SafinaKhann' suggests a narrative shaped by social media discourse that may conflict with the physical evidence presented to the District Courts (East) of Islamabad.

Institutional Accountability: The Capital Development Authority (CDA)'s role in the incident remains opaque, with conflicting reports on the management of the facility.

Evidence & Data

Scheduled hearings on February 20, 2026, before Ahtsham Muqarrab, indicate a rush to trial despite significant narrative gaps. The FIR 1626/25 alleges criminal conduct under the PPC, yet the 'Stray Dog Population Control Centre incident' lacks a cohesive sequence of events. The role of Bashir Ahmed (father of the accused) and the specifics of the confrontation remain poorly documented in the public record.

Legal Framework

Pakistan Penal Code (PPC): Relevant sections regarding public order and criminal trespass.

CrPC Section 173: The requirement for a complete and transparent police report (Challan) before trial.

UDHR Article 11: Right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law.

Recommendations

A stay of proceedings until a full independent inquiry into the CDA facility incident is completed.

Read the full case file on HRPM for more details on Case HRPM-MLORJ30M.