The court decided that any accused arrested in one case is deemed arrested in all cases registered against them to prevent successive arrests
The court decided that any accused arrested in one case is deemed arrested in all cases registered against them to prevent successive arrests, ordered the registration of a criminal case against the involved police officers for illegal detention and fabrication of evidence, and granted post-arrest bail to Muhammad Latif.
اس فیصلے میں عدالت نے جو منفرد نکتہ طے کیا ہے وہ یہ اصول ہے کہ ایک دفعہ کسی ملزم کو کسی مقدمے میں گرفتار کر لیا جائے تو یہ سمجھا جائے کہ وہ اس وقت ان کے خلاف درج دیگر تمام مقدمات میں گرفتار ہو چکے ہیں۔ اس اصول کا مقصد کسی فرد کی ضمانت پر رہائی کے بعد مختلف مقدمات میں یکے بعد دیگرے گرفتاریوں کے عمل کو روکنا ہے، اس طرح فرد کی آزادی کے بنیادی حق کا تحفظ اور پولیس کے ذریعے ہراساں کرنے اور اختیارات کے ناجائز استعمال کو روکنا ہے۔
اس فیصلے میں کئی اہم ہدایات شامل ہیں:
1. **تمام مقدمات میں گرفتاری کا قیاس:** ایک کیس میں گرفتار ملزم کو ان کے خلاف درج تمام مقدمات میں گرفتار تصور کیا جائے گا۔
2. **تحریری درخواستوں کی ضرورت:** اگر اضافی مقدمات میں گرفتاری ضروری ہے، تو تفتیشی افسر کو ایک تحریری درخواست کرنی ہوگی جس میں ملزم کو پہلے گرفتار نہ کرنے کی وجوہات بیان کی جائیں۔
3. **مجسٹریٹ کا کردار:** ایریا مجسٹریٹ یا عدالت کو وجوہات کا جائزہ لینے اور قانونی معیارات کی تعمیل کو یقینی بنانے کے بعد ایسی گرفتاریوں کی منظوری دینی چاہیے۔
4. **استغاثہ کی رائے:** گرفتاری کی درخواست میں متعلقہ پراسیکیوٹر کی طرف سے ثبوت کی کفایت کے حوالے سے توثیق شامل ہونی چاہیے۔
5. **سپریم کورٹ کے فیصلوں کی پابندی:** فیصلوں کو سپریم کورٹ کی ہدایات کے مطابق ہونا چاہیے، خاص طور پر صغراں بی بی کیس میں قائم کردہ۔
ان رہنما خطوط کا مقصد اس بات کو یقینی بنانا ہے کہ پولیس مختلف مقدمات میں بار بار گرفتاریوں کے ذریعے کسی فرد کی حراست میں من مانی طور پر توسیع نہیں کر سکتی، اس طرح پاکستان کے آئین میں درج مناسب عمل اور منصفانہ ٹرائل کے اصول کو برقرار رکھا جا سکتا ہے۔
Certainly! Here is a summary focusing on the main points discussed in the judgment:
---
**Main Points Discussed in the Judgment:**
1. **Police Misconduct and Abuse of Power:**
- The judgment highlights the frequent occurrences of police brutality and abuse of power, questioning the legitimacy of law enforcement when officers act with impunity.
- Specific instances of abuse include excessive force, false arrests, and successive arrests without due process.
2. **Case Background:**
- Shahida Bibi filed a petition against the illegal confinement of her husband, Muhammad Lateef, by the police.
- Despite court orders, the police repeatedly detained Muhammad Lateef, showing a pattern of misconduct and abuse of power.
3. **Court's Findings:**
- The court found the actions of ASI Sajid Khan and the SHO of P.S. Raja Jang to be malicious and aimed at harassing Muhammad Lateef.
- The judgment criticized the police practice of successive arrests after the detainee is released on bail, labeling it a denial of fundamental rights.
4. **Legal Principles:**
- An accused arrested in one case should be presumed arrested in all pending cases against him.
- The judgment emphasized the need for police to follow legal procedures and avoid arbitrary arrests.
5. **Directives Issued:**
- The court ordered the registration of a criminal case against the delinquent police officials.
- Guidelines were established to ensure police accountability and prevent future misuse of arrest powers:
- Presumption of arrest in all cases once an individual is detained.
- Written requests and justification for arrests in additional cases.
- Involvement of the Area Magistrate and Prosecutor in approving subsequent arrests.
- Ensuring compliance with the principles of fair trial and due process.
6. **Protection of Fundamental Rights:**
- The court reiterated its role in safeguarding the fundamental rights of citizens against unlawful actions by the police.
- It stressed that life and liberty are constitutional rights that must be protected from executive overreach.
7. **Conclusion:**
- The court granted post-arrest bail to Muhammad Lateef and emphasized that such police practices would not be tolerated in the future.
- Any deviation from the issued guidelines would result in penal consequences for the responsible officers.
---
Form No: HCJD/C-121
ORDER SHEET
IN THE LAHORE HIGH COURT LAHORE
(JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT)
Case No. Crl.Misc.No.27670-H/2024
Shahida Bibi
Versus Inspector General of Police, Punjab, 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 Qasim Ali and Muhammad Ashfaq Gujjar,
Advocates for the petitioner.
Rana Umair Abrar Khan, A.A.G. with Shaukat, S.I.
======
The legitimacy of the police force in any
nation is fundamentally anchored in its perceived
impartiality, fairness, and adherence to the
principles of justice. Unfortunately, over the past
few years, a day seldom goes by without another
case of police brutality or abuse of power by police
officers being noticed by this Court. The frequency
of these occurrences begs the question as to whether
this is simply our new norm or whether a public can
ever truly feel safe and protected by the law
enforcement. The term “abuse of power”
encompasses all the ways police officers can abuse
their positions by taking advantage of the very
people they have pledged to serve and protect.
While most Police Officers take that pledge
seriously, there are some who abuse the power given
them to fulfill selfish personal desire or personal
vendetta. The “abuse of power” by a Police Officer,
inter-alia, includes the use of excessive force,
placing a citizen under false arrest, warrantless
searches or arrests, successive arrest of an accused
in one after the other case and assault upon a citizen.
This case is a classic example of abuse of
Crl.Misc.No.27670-H/24
| 2
Shahida Bibi, filed a petition1
complaining illegal
confinement of her husband, Muhammad Lateef (the
detenue) by the SHO, P.S. Manga Mandi, District
Lahore. This Court issued a direction2
for production
of the detenue in the Court, which was duly
conveyed to the concerned quarters but despite this
fact Investigating Officer of case3
in order to
frustrate the proceedings of this Court, presented the
alleged detenue before the learned Area Magistrate
and made a request for sending him to judicial lock
up for the purpose of test identification parade
which was accordingly granted by the said
Magistrate. This Court while taking serious notice of
the malafide of the Investigating Officer summoned
the SSP (Inv) and SP (Inv) Sadar Division, Lahore,
who undertook to hold inquiry against the
delinquent police official. Since, the custody of the
detenue was regulated under the law, as such said
petition was disposed of with direction to the
petitioner to agitate her grievance before the
competent forum.4
2. Statedly, the detenue was discharged in case
FIR No.1639/2023 dated 02.07.2023, in respect of
offence U/S 392 PPC, whereas, he was granted post
arrest bail in case FIR No.1048/24, in respect of an
offence U/S 401 PPC, both registered at Police
Station, Manga Mandi, Lahore vide order dated
03.05.2024. Soon after the release of the detenue
from the jail on the same day, respondent No.4
(Sajid Khan, ASI) again forcibly abducted the
detenue and confined him at Police Station, Raja
Jang, District Kasur, with the active connivance of
Crl.Misc.No.27670-H/24
| 3
the SHO of said police station (SHO). Being
aggrieved, the petitioner rushed to this Court by
filing instant petition, seeking recovery and
production of the detenue in the Court. Notices were
issued to the concerned quarters 5
and in compliance
of said notice SHO submitted a report, according to
which the detenue being required in case FIR
No.71/24 dated 23.01.2024 in respect of offence
under Section 392 PPC registered at Police Station,
Raja Jang was arrested and sent to judicial lock up
on 08.05.2024.
3. The report submitted by the SHO is sham.
The case FIR No.71/24, in which the arrest of the
detenue was shown was registered on 23.01.2024. If
the report of the SHO is taken on face value, even
then the case property which was shown to be
recovered at the instance of the detenue, was taken
into possession by the Investigating Officer vide
case diary No.1 dated 07.04.2024 and admittedly at
that time the detenue was in judicial lock up. There
is no explanation of the fact that if the arrest of the
detenue was required in the aforesaid case, then why
his arrest was not shown in jail record at that time. It
is settled proposition of law that when an accused is
arrested in a case, there is no legal impediment for
interrogating him with regard to all the cases
registered against him since then. Section 167
Cr.P.C. does not visualize successive and repeated
arrest of a person required in more than one cases.
An accused required in more than one criminal cases
when arrested will be deemed to have been arrested
in all the cases registered against him. There is no
legal bar for interrogating an accused person with
regard to the allegations levelled against him in
Crl.Misc.No.27670-H/24
| 4
another case. It is rather desirable that when a person
is required or accused in more than one cases or
where more than one F.I.Rs. are registered against
him is arrested and remanded to physical custody,
then he should be interrogated about the allegations
against him in all the cases. Instead of acting strictly
in accordance with law, the police since long is
following the illegal practice of showing the arrest
of the person in one case and on the expiry of
remand or after release on post arrest bail it again
arrests him in another case. It is commonly known
that in selected cases, police would arrest the
accused on his release in the first case. It is nowhere
stated in the Criminal Procedure Code and Police
Rules that a person required in more than one case
when arrested will be deemed to have been arrested
in one case and he cannot be arrested simultaneously
in more than one case. Section 167, Cr.P.C. simply
says that when a person is arrested or detained in
custody, the Magistrate may authorise his detention
in such custody for a term not exceeding fifteen days
in the whole. The section does not talk of case, it
talks of custody only. The longest period for which
an accused can be ordered to be detained
continuously in police custody by one or more such
orders, is only fifteen days. So, the detention of the
accused person required in more than one cases
already registered against him, for more than fifteen
days would be illegal.6
4. Life and liberty is a fundamental right
enshrined in the Constitution of Islamic Republic of
Pakistan, 1973 and the same cannot be allowed to be
curtailed at the whims of the executive. Successive
arrests of an accused in different cases one after
6
Mst. Razia Pervaiz and another ..Vs.. The Senior Superintendent of Police Multan and 5 others (1992 P Cr.LJ 131)
Crl.Misc.No.27670-H/24
| 5
another amounts to denial of his fundamental right
and this Court being jealous guardian of the rights of
a citizen cannot sit as a silent spectator and will step
forward to curb such malpractice. It is well settled
that where the action and proceedings are not bona
fide and with ulterior motive to obtain information
about an absconding accused and arrest after arrest
is made involving same person in different blind
reports lodged much earlier and no explanation is
provided for such series of actions in seriatim one
after the other, the High Court is empowered to
afford protection to the citizen against involving
frivolous and mala fide actions by imposing
conditions on the erring authorities and agencies. 7
The Courts have to safeguard the fundamental rights
of every citizen and to protect the life and liberty
from illegal, unauthorized and mala fide acts of
omission or commission by an authority or person.
In cases where the liberty of a citizen was involved
the action initiated by the police when found to be
mala fide the court should not hesitate to step in and
grant relief to the citizen.8
5. It is thus once again reiterated that an accused
arrested in one case shall be deemed to have been
arrested in all the cases registered against him since
then and practice of his arrest after release in one
case amounts to denial of his fundamental rights. In
future if this practice is not discontinued, the
delinquent police official shall be taken to task for
denying the basic right of liberty to a citizen. A
question may arise in mind that how the police of
one police station may have knowledge/information
about the registration of case against an accused in
Crl.Misc.No.27670-H/24
| 6
some other police station or in some other district.
Answer of this question has been given by this Court
in a celebrated judgment 9
in a following terms:-
“ In the light of above discussion, it can be
said that in this digital age when sharing information
is so simple and cheap, its dissemination has become
so rapid and effective either through social media
account or online information available at respective
Police Information System Software, the record of
criminal cases of an accused can be obtained easily.
Even otherwise, a Crime Investigation Agency (CIA)
is in existence, whose primary duty is collection of
information relating to investigation of every case
registered in the district that does include information
of arrest as per Rule 21.35 of Police Rules, 1934 and
it also talks ab out arrest of accused in all cases and
not in one. On receiving an information of arrest of an
accused CIA is duty bound to inform the Incharge
Police Station about any other cases registered against
him in the district; therefore, Station House Officer
can also develop contact with CIA of other districts or
provinces so as to collect information about number
of cases registered against him throughout the
country.”
6. Herein the instant case, the police cannot
even take shelter of ignorance of arrest of the
detenue in an already registered case, as the police
report itself shows that during the investigation of
case FIR No.1048/24, robbed motor-cycle of case
FIR No.71/24 was recovered at the instance of the
alleged detenue and the same was taken into
possession by the Investigating Officer of case FIR
No.71/24 vide case diary No.1 dated 07.04.2024
and admittedly at that time the detenue was in
judicial lock up but he intentionally avoided to
arrest the detenue in the said case. It is important
Crl.Misc.No.27670-H/24
| 7
to note that detenue was not nominated in case FIR
No.71/24 and he was involved in the said case
upon his own disclosure while in police custody
which is not admissible piece of evidence.
Apparently, Sajid Khan, ASI, P.S. Manga Mandi,
who earlier apprehended the detenue and when this
Court took notice, he opted to send him on judicial
remand and when his illegal exercise of power was
brought in the notice of his high-ups by this
Court 10 he nurtured grudge against the detenue
and in order to teach him lesson, illegally confined
him and when the petitioner filed instant petition,
he in order to save his skin, in active connivance
with the SHO, P.S. Raja Jang, Kasur created
evidence against the detenue and involved him in
case FIR No.71/24. Had it not been so, the
Investigating Officer of said case, would have
arrested the detenue on the very date, when the
case property was taken into possession by him.
This is very alarming situation. Constitutional
Courts are meant to protect the fundamental rights
of an aggrieved person(s) including liberty and
liberty and redress their grievances. If an aggrieved
person knocked the door of this Court against the
malafide or colourful exercise of authority by the
Executive or illegal confinement of his/her dear
one, it is the bounden duty of the Court to protect
his/her right subject to law. However, if any
official/officer complained against, took it on
personal level and attempted to teach lesson to the
aggrieved person, who approached this Court for
redressal of his/her grievance, this Court will not
tolerate such practice and the delinquent/
responsible officer/official shall have to face the
Crl.Misc.No.27670-H/24
| 8
consequences. From the above facts, it has been
established on record that Sajid Khan, ASI, P.S.
Manga Mandi, Lahore with the active connivance
of SHO, P.S. Raja Jang, Kasur, forcibly abducted
the detenue Muhammad Latif and when the Court
took notice of his illegal confinement, created false
and fabricated evidence against him in order to
save their skin, therefore, the petitioner is directed
to file an application for registration of criminal
case against both the aforesaid police officials
before the District Police Officer, Kasur, who shall
lodge the FIR against them under the relevant
provisions of law without wastage of any time,
under intimation to the Deputy Registrar (J) of this
Court. In order to rule out the possibility of excuse
of non-appearance of the petitioner seeking
registration of case, in such an eventuality, 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.
7. It goes without saying that one of the cardinal
principle of criminal law and jurisprudence is that an
accused person is presumed to be innocent until
proven guilty by the Court of law. However, on the
one hand, soon after lodging of the crime report or
supplementary statement, as the case may be, the
complainant insisted upon the arrest of the accused
and on the other hand, it has been observed by this
Court that the Investigating Officer seems more
eager to cause arrest of such accused, without
determining the veracity of the allegations. It is well
settled that mere lodging of an information does not
make a person an accused nor does a person against
whom an investigation is being conducted by the
Crl.Misc.No.27670-H/24
| 9
police can strictly be called an accused.11 It is,
therefore, desired that on receiving an information
qua the involvement of a person in a cognizable
offence, police should not straightway cause his
arrest, rather first determine the veracity of the
allegations and if after investigation, it arrived at a
conclusion that sufficient incriminating material is
available against the person complained against,
then proceed further in accordance with law. If a
person is unjustly deprived of his liberty,
compensation will be required to be paid to him or
her by the delinquent police officer.12 In Sughran
Bibi case13 the Apex Court, inter-alia, declared that
“ Ordinarily no person is to be arrested only
because he has been nominated as an accused
person in an FIR or in any other version of the
incident brought to the notice of the investigating
officer by any person until the investigating officer
feels satisfied that sufficient justification exists for
his arrest and for such justification he is to be
guided by the relevant provisions of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1898 and the Police Rules,
1934. According to the relevant provisions of the
said Code and the Rules a suspect is not to be
arrested straightaway or as a matter of course and,
unless the situation on the ground so warrants, the
arrest is to be deferred till such time that sufficient
material or evidence becomes available on the
record of investigation prima facie satisfying the
investigating officer regarding correctness of the
allegations levelled against such suspect or
regarding his involvement in the crime in issue.”
This judgment of the Apex Court is binding on
Crl.Misc.No.27670-H/24
| 10
every organ of the State as per Article 189 of the
Constitution and any deviation from the said
judgment alone is sufficient to infer the malafide
and ulterior motive on the part of a person doing so.
Life and liberty of a person is a cherished right
guaranteed under the Constitution and the same
cannot be allowed to be circumvented at the whims
of the executive. Arrest of any person is a grave
matter. Capricious exercise of the power to arrest
has deleterious consequences, thus highlighting the
need to exercise it with care, caution and sensitivity.
Arrest of a person has to be justified not only by
referring to prima facie evidence and adequate
actionable material sufficiently connecting the
person with the offence/crime complained of, but
also by showing that in the given circumstances,
there were no other less intrusive or restrictive
means available. The power of arrest should not be
deployed as a tool of oppression and harassment.14
8.
In the present case, as has been discussed
supra, prima facie, the police officials in order to
justify illegal detention of the detenue, involved
him in case FIR No.71/24, on the basis of his socalled confession before the police, which is not
admissible piece of evidence and unfortunately the
Area Magistrate while dealing with the request of
Investigating Officer for judicial remand of the
detenue has failed to take into consideration, this
legal aspect of the case and granted the request in a
mechanical manner, which cannot be subscribed
by this Court. The evidence so far collected against
the detenue Muhammad Latif is insufficient to
curtail his liberty, therefore, instead of requiring
him to approach the Court of first instance for his
Crl.Misc.No.27670-H/24
| 11
release on bail, this Court while exercising its
jurisdiction under Section 561-A Cr.P.C., is
granting him 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. He shall be released from the jail
forthwith, if not required in any other case.
9. In order to curb practice of arresting an
accused in different criminal cases, one after the
other, after his release on bail, following directions
are issued to all the concerned:-
“(i) If an accused is arrested in a criminal
case, he shall be presumed to have been
arrested in all criminal cases registered
against him wherein his arrest was required.
(ii) If arrest of the accused was required in
any case already registered against him but
could not be made for any reason,
Investigating Officer is bound to make a
written request to the Area Magistrate or the
Court, as the case may be, explaining the
reasons for such omission and seeking
permission for the arrest of the accused.
(iii) The request of the Investigating Officer
must be endorsed by an opinion of the
concerned Prosecutor qua sufficiency of the
material for the arrest of an accused.
(iv) Area Magistrate or the Court, as the
case may be, shall not accord approval of such
arrest in a mechanical manner, rather record
reasons in writing for granting such
permission.
(v) If according to the opinion of the Area
Magistrate or the Court, as the case may,
sufficient incriminating material is not
l.Misc.No.27670-H/24
| 12
available against an accused, it may defer
such arrest till the time of availability of such
evidence.
(vi) At the time of dealing with such request
of arrest, Area Magistrate or the Court, as the
case may be, must keep in mind the binding
dictum of the Apex Court laid down in
Sughran Bibi Case15 and the right of fair trial
and due process enshrined in Article 10-A of
the Constitution of Islamic Republic of
Pakistan, 1973.
(vii) Any deviation from the above
directions would entail penal consequences,
provided under the law.”
Copy of this order shall be circulated amongst
all concerned through the office of Registrar.
Disposed of.
(Asjad Javaid Ghural)
Judge
Approved for reporting
Judge
Comments
Post a Comment