A judicial commission investigating the circumstances and possible negligence surrounding the murder of Mir Raza Ali expressed serious displeasure Thursday with the victim’s business partner, accusing him of attempting to mislead the inquiry and conceal material facts about the case.
Justice Omar Sial of the Sindh High Court, heading the one-member commission, questioned Muhammad Ahmed Bhardey for more than two hours, criticising him for appearing more concerned with protecting his financial and business interests than with the wellbeing of his childhood friend after Raza went missing.
Bhardey, who told the commission he and Raza had been friends since school and college before founding their eatery Wafflix together in 2020, testified that on the night of July 28 he and his elder brother Abdullah had visited the victim’s house, joining other friends in searching Raza’s room for clues to his whereabouts. He said they found the victim’s smartwatch, keys, a packet of cigarettes, narcotics, and other items in the room, and that Raza’s sister had helped them decode the smartwatch’s contents.
Asked whether he had retrieved the partnership deed from the room, Bhardey said the deed, originally registered in 2021, had actually been in his possession since 2024, after the Sindh Board of Revenue issued a notice over its non-registration; he said no copy of the document existed. He also told the commission that on the night of July 28, he had asked the victim’s sister to email Foodpanda requesting that the eatery’s weekly payment, between Rs600,000 and Rs800,000, be transferred to his own account rather than Raza’s. Two notes had reportedly been found on the deceased’s smartwatch, one detailing creditor information and another indicating Raza had been seeking to borrow Rs30 million.
When the commission asked why Bhardey’s email and phone number were being used to access the victim’s iCloud account, he said simply that the two were very close, longtime friends. Pressed on why he appeared more focused on payments than on his missing friend’s welfare, Bhardey said he had not initially taken the disappearance seriously, since Raza had also gone missing the previous year before returning home.
Bhardey further told the commission that he learned on the morning of July 28 that a security guard’s pistol, kept at one of the eatery’s branches, was missing, and that CCTV footage showed Raza leaving the branch with the weapon; he said he had informed the family about the footage. He maintained that the business itself was not facing financial difficulty, but said Raza’s family was under serious fiscal strain following losses in his father’s business, adding that lenders had been pressuring the family for repayment and that his parents had sold various assets. He said several lenders who had extended money to Raza or his family contacted him after Raza’s disappearance, and that Raza had separately invested two to three million rupees in cryptocurrency trading.
Bhardey initially told the commission that he and Raza held an equal partnership in the business, but when shown a separate agreement indicating one Ahsan Anis Shamsi held a 30 percent stake in the eatery, he conceded this was accurate. He further disclosed that two brothers, Asif and Abid, had invested Rs10.5 million, and that he had asked Raza to retain a Rs5 million payment made by Shamsi.
The commission expressed strong displeasure at what it called unsatisfactory answers, noting that Bhardey had shown no urgency in following up on the Rs5 million payment, yet appeared preoccupied with a Rs600,000 sum shortly after his business partner went missing. Justice Sial was sharply critical of Bhardey for what he described as attempts to mislead the commission and withhold relevant facts, and separately expressed displeasure with Bhardey’s counsel for interjecting during proceedings.
Asked why he had sought interim pre-arrest bail despite police not having named any accused in the case, Bhardey said the victim’s family had pointed fingers at him, and that police had already detained him for 36 hours.
Abdullah Bhardey, the business partner’s brother, also testified before the commission, stating that his brother and the victim jointly owned Wafflix, with Abdullah associated with the firm as a chocolate supplier. He largely corroborated his younger brother’s account, confirming his presence during the search of the victim’s room and providing details about the two notes found on the smartwatch.
