"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

For more information call us 0092-324-4010279 Whatsapp Dear readers if u like this post plz comments and follow us. Thanks for reading .as you know our goal is to aware people of their rights and how can get their rights. we will answer every question, so we need your help to achieve our goal. plz tell people about this blog and subscribe to our youtube channel and follow us at the end of this post.