"Lahore High Court Orders Release of Wrongfully Detained Woman, Actions Against Police for Misconduct"
"Lahore High Court Orders Release of Wrongfully Detained Woman, and Actions Against Police for Misconduct"
The Lahore High Court ordered the release of Mst. Nagina, who was unlawfully detained by the police. The court found the police fabricated evidence and misused their authority, leading to disciplinary and criminal actions against the officers involved.
The case revolves around Mst. Najma Bibi's petition seeking the release of her daughter-in-law, Mst. Nagina, from what she claimed was illegal detention by the police. According to Najma Bibi, on the night of May 4, 2024, police officers raided her house and took Mst. Nagina without any involvement in a criminal case. She alleged that the police demanded a bribe of Rs.10,00,000 for her release and threatened to implicate her in multiple criminal cases.
In response, the Lahore High Court ordered the SHO to produce Mst. Nagina in court. However, instead of complying, the SHO reported that Nagina was involved in a robbery case (FIR No. 754/24) and had been sent to judicial lock-up. The court found discrepancies in the police's claims, noting contradictions in their evidence and procedures. The SHO and investigating officers were accused of fabricating evidence and misusing their authority to detain Nagina unlawfully. The court declared Nagina's detention illegal, granted her post-arrest bail, and ordered disciplinary and criminal proceedings against the responsible police officers.
Form No: HCJD/C-121
ORDER SHEET
IN THE LAHORE HIGH COURT, LAHORE
(JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT)
Case No. Crl.Misc.No.27821-H/24
Mst. Najma Bibi
Versus
S.H.O., etc.
Sr.No.of order/
Proceedings
Date of order/
Proceedings
Order with signatures of Judge, and that of parties or counsel,
where necessary.
13.05.2024
M/S Israr Hussain and Muhammad Ashfaq Gujjar,
Advocates with the petitioner.
Rana Umair Abrar Khan, A.A.G. with Ikram Shehbaz,
SHO, Najam ul Hassan, S.I. and Warris Virk, S.I.
======
Through this petition under Section 491
Cr.P.C. the petitioner Mst. Najma Bibi, seeks
recovery of Mst. Nagina, her daughter in law, from
the illegal and unlawful confinement of
respondents, inter-alia, on the grounds that on
04.05.2024 around 2/3.00 A.M. (night)
respondents alongwith other police officials raided
at the house of the petitioner and took away the
alleged detenue without her involvement in any
criminal case; that when the petitioner contacted
the respondents for release of the alleged detenue,
they demanded illegal gratification of
Rs.10,00,000/-, otherwise, threatened to involve
her in multiple criminal cases.
2. This Court vide order dated 06.05.2024
directed respondent No.1/SHO, P.S. Daska (SHO)
to produce the alleged detenue in the Court.
3. SHO instead of producing the detenue,
submitted a report that the alleged detenue was
required in FIR No.754/24 dated 29.03.2024, in
respect of an offence U/S 392 PPC, registered at
P.S. City Daska and has been sent to judicial lock
up on 08.05.2024.
Crl.Misc.No.27821-H-24 2
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits
that the SHO has created false evidence against the
detenue in order to cover his illegal act; that earlier
the petitioner filed Writ Petition No.16520/24
before this Court complaining the highhandedness/
harassment of the police authorities to the
petitioner and her family members, in which vide
order dated 03.04.2024, SHO submitted an
undertaking that he will not harass the petitioner in
any manner in future, upon which said writ
petition was disposed of; that SHO nurtured
grudge of filing of said writ petition against the
petitioner and in order to teach her lesson illegally
and unlawfully confined her daughter in law; that
the petitioner has also filed contempt petition
against the SHO in this regard.
5. SHO, in attendance, was inquired how the
alleged detenue was involved in the aforesaid
criminal case, upon which he stated that vide case
diary No.2 dated 09.04.2024, accused persons
namely Attique Butt, Bilal and Awais during
investigation disclosed that earlier they committed
the offence of robbery with the help of Khalid,
husband of the alleged detenue but after the arrest
of said Khalid, they committed the robbery at the
pointation of the alleged detenue; that thereafter
the complainant in his supplementary statement
recorded on 16.04.2024 involved the alleged
detenue in the occurrence, as such she was arrested
and sent to judicial lock up. This stance of the
SHO is self contradictory, if the co-accused made
disclosure qua involvement of the detenue in the
occurrence then there should not be any need for
the supplementary statement of the complainant
and the Investigating Officer was required to
Crl.Misc.No.27821-H-24 3
proceed further there and then in the light of
alleged disclosure but he remained dormant and
then after almost seven days of alleged disclosure
recorded the supplementary statement of the
complainant which sans source of information.
6. On Court’s query, he has failed to produce
the police record, which contained case diaries but
on the contrary produced the incomplete report
U/S 173 Cr.P.C. which prima facie leads to the
conclusion that something is wrong in the bottom.
7. I have also gone through the FIR No.754/24
dated 29.03.2024, in respect of an offence U/S 392
PPC, registered at P.S. City Daska, which was got
lodged by the complainant against three unknown
persons. The alleged occurrence has taken place in
Canal View Town, Daska, District Sialkot,
whereas, the alleged detenue is resident of Tehsil
Kamonke, District Gujranwala. Interestingly, the
rest of three accused are also residents of Tehsil
Daska and it seems very ludicrous, how the alleged
detenue could point out a house for commission of
an offence that was situated in some other district,
in particular, when the complainant was previously
stranger to her. Similar is the situation with the
supplementary statement of the complainant which
was recorded after twenty days of the alleged
occurrence, wherein he did not disclose his source
of information qua the involvement of the alleged
detenue in the occurrence. The petitioner has
knocked the door of this Court complaining illegal
and unlawful confinement of the alleged detenue
on 06.05.2024 and this Court required her
production in the Court on 10.05.2024 and
apparently on receipt of said notice, the SHO in
connivance with the Investigating Officer of said
Crl.Misc.No.27821-H-24 4
case namely Najam ul Hassan, S.I. , in order to
bypass the direction of this Court, produced the
alleged detenue before the Magistrate Section-30,
Daska on 08.05.2025 for sending her on judicial
remand. Perusal of the remand paper shows that it
was not forwarded by the concerned, Prosecutor
but amazingly the learned Magistrate not only
entertained the request of the Investigating Officer,
without the same being forwarded by the
Prosecutor but also send the alleged detenue to the
judicial lock up in a mechanical manner without
applying its judicial mind as to whether sufficient
material was available against the alleged detenue
to curtail her liberty or not.
8. The liberty and dignity of a person have
always remained sacrosanct and have been placed
atop the fundamental/ human rights pedestal. Islam
has conferred upon human being the highest level
of dignity amongst all of Allah’s creation and
secured and protected for them complete liberty
within the prescribed limits. 1
Everyone has the
right to liberty and security of person. No one shall
be subjected to arbitrary arrest or detention. No
one shall be deprived of his liberty except on such
grounds and in accordance with such procedure as
are established by law.2
Life bereft of liberty
would be without honour and dignity and it would
lose all significance and meaning and the life itself
would not be worth living. This is why “liberty” is
called the very quintessence of a civilized
existence…3
Even Article 9 of the Constitution of
Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 guarantees that
no person shall be deprived of life and liberty save
1
See Kh. Salman Rafiq Case (PLD 2020 SC 456)
2
Article (9)(1) of the Int
Crl.Misc.No.27821-H-24 5
in accordance with law. Protection against
arbitrary arrest and detention is part of the right to
liberty and fair trial.4
Here in the instant case, it is
an admitted fact that the alleged detenue was not
named in the crime report of the aforementioned
criminal case. She was involved in the case
subsequently on the so-called disclosure of the coaccused before the police. According to Article 38
of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984, admission
of an accused before police cannot be used as
evidence against the co-accused.5
Even otherwise,
it is well settled by now that confession of an
accused before the police is inadmissible in
evidence as far as admission of his own
involvement in the alleged offence concerned, thus
his statement vis-à-vis involvement of the coaccused is ordinarily twice removed from
admissibility or reliability.6
I am of the
considered view that the so-called disclosure of the
co-accused, which even not produced before the
Court, was insufficient to curtail the liberty of the
alleged detenue, which is her inalienable right
enshrined in the Constitution.
Second piece of evidence created by the
SHO & Investigating Officer, in order to justify
the arrest/detention of the alleged detenue is
supplementary statement got recorded by him
almost twenty days of the alleged occurrence but
he did not disclose his source qua involvement of
the alleged detenue in the alleged occurrence.
Moreso, as has been discussed supra, the alleged
detenue is resident of Tehsil Kamonke, District
4
See What Is A Fair Trial: A Basic Guide to Legal Standards and Practice, published by Lawyers Committee for
Human Rights, USA (2000)
5
Raja Muhammad Younis .Vs. The State (2013 SCMR 669)
l.Misc.No.27821-H-24 6
Gujranwala, whereas, the alleged occurrence has
taken place in Tehsil Daska, District Sialkot and
there is a complete silence in the statement of the
complainant, how she could point out her house
for the purpose of robbery, in particular, when she
was earlier stranger to her. It is well settled by now
that any statement or further statement of the first
informant recorded during the investigation by
police would neither be equated with First
Information Report nor read as part of it.7
The
Apex Court in a plethora of judgments observed
that supplementary statement recorded
subsequently to the FIR can be viewed as
improvement.8
Although in order to strengthen the
case against the alleged detenue recovery of one
pair of gold earrings was shown against her but
neither the weight of alleged recovered gold
ornaments was mentioned nor its complete
description was disclosed to connect her with the
alleged crime. Moreso, occurrence has taken place
on 29.03.2024 and the alleged recovery was shown
to be effected from the handbag of the alleged
detenue on 08.05.2024 i.e. after almost 1 ½ months
and it is beyond comprehension that an accused of
robbery kept the case property in her hand bag for
such a long period. Apparently, the SHO in active
connivance with the Investigating Officer
manipulated forged and fabricated evidence in
order to avoid the consequences of illegal
detention. Unfortunately, learned Magistrate
Section-30, Daska has also not applied its judicial
mind and acceded the request of judicial remand of
the alleged detenue, which was even not forwarded
7
Falak Sher .vs. The State (1995 SCMR 1350)
8
1993 SCMR 550,1998 SCMR 685,2011 SCMR 379, 2011 SCMR 161 & 2003 SCMR 426
Crl.Misc.No.27821-H-24 7
by the concerned Prosecutor, resulting into grave
miscarriage of justice.
9. For the reasons enumerated above, the
detention of the alleged detenue namely Mst.
Nagina Ashraf is hereby declared illegal and result
of mis-use of authority by the SHO &
Investigating Officer. The evidence so far
collected against her is insufficient to curtail her
liberty even for a minute, therefore, instead of
making her ball of ping pong for approaching the
Court of first instance for her release on bail, this
Court while exercising its jurisdiction under
Section 561-A Cr.P.C. , granted her post arrest bail
subject to furnishing of bail bonds in the sum of
Rs.10,000/- with one surety in the like amount to
the satisfaction of the Trial Court. She shall be
released from the jail forthwith, if not required in
any other case.
10. Having said so, the way and the manner the
police officials abducted the alleged detenue by
trespassing into her house at mid-night without any
search warrants, confined her for a number of days
and then created false and frivolous evidence
against her in order to justify their act requires
serious attention. Apparently, the SHO nurtured
grudge against the petitioner for filing of
harassment petition against him and in order to
teach her lesson and made her example for the rest
of aggrieved persons, he took the law into hands
and abducted the alleged detenue, in the mid-night
and confined her in unlawful custody. When the
petitioner again approached to the Court seeking
recovery of alleged detenue, then in order to cover
his illegal act, he in active connivance with the
Investigating Officer, involved her in the aforesaid
Crl.Misc.No.27821-H-24 8
criminal case. District Police Officer, is directed to
suspend the SHO, P.S. City Daska namely Ikram
Shehbaz and Syed Najam ul Hassan, SI, for
misusing their authority forthwith, initiate
departmental proceedings against them and
conclude the same within three months from the
date hereof under intimation to the Deputy
Registrar (J) of this Court. He shall also ensure that
no posting will be given to both the officials till the
conclusion of the departmental proceedings.
Besides above, SHO and Investigating Officer are
also liable to face criminal case, therefore,
petitioner is directed to move written application
for abduction/ illegal confinement of the alleged
detenue to the DPO, Sialkot, who shall ensure
registration of case against them under the relevant
provisions of law forthwith. To eliminate the
excuse for non-registration of FIR on the ground
that the petitioner has not appeared before the
police for getting registration of case, in case of his
failure, the DPO is directed to get FIR registered
against the above-mentioned delinquent police
officials through any of his subordinates not below
than the rank of DSP.
11. Before parting with this order, following
directions are issued to all the concerned for strict
compliance in the future:-
(i) Liberty of a person is a fundamental
right enshrined in the Constitution and no
one can be allowed to curtail the same on
the basis of malafide and colourful exercise
of authority.
(ii) Supplementary statement recorded by
the complainant for involving a particular
accused in an incident, without disclosing
Crl.Misc.No.27821-H-24 9
the source of information, is not per se
admissible piece of evidence, as such while
recording such statement, the Investigation
Officer should insist upon the complainant
to disclose his source of information.
(iii) Investigating Officer should not cause
arrest of the accused straightaway upon the
supplementary statement of the complainant,
rather he is duty bound to first collect
incriminating piece of evidence in support of
such statement and then proceed in
accordance with law.
(iv) The request of the Investigating Officer
for physical/judicial remand of such accused,
must have been accompanied with the opinion
of the concerned Prosecutor qua sufficiency
of the material against him.
(v) Any request sans of the opinion of the
concerned Prosecutor shall not be entertained
by the Area Magistrate or the Court as the
case may be.
(vi) The Area Magistrate or the Court, as
the case may be, shall not grant
physical/judicial remand in a mechanical
manner, rather record its reasons for
according such request.
(vii) If the supplementary statement of the
complainant is bereft of source of information
for involvement of an accused, the Area
Magistrate or the Court as the case may be,
may require the presence of the complainant
before dealing with such request.
Crl.Misc.No.27821-H-24 10
13. Copy of this order shall be circulated amongst
all the concerned for compliance through Registrar
of this Court.
Disposed of.
(Asjad Javaid Ghural)
Judge
Approved for Reporting
Judg
Comments
Post a Comment