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 


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.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Property ki taqseem ,Warasat main warson ka hisa

Punishment for violation of section 144 crpc | dafa 144 in Pakistan means,kia hai , khalaf warzi per kitni punishment hu gi،kab or kese lagai ja ja sakti hai.

Bachon ki custody of minors after divorce or separation