Fake police encounter | illegal arrest | case law
 |
| Fake police encounter | illegal arrest | case law |
یہ لاہور ہائی کورٹ کا فیصلہ غیر قانونی حراست میں
رکھے گئے شاہزاد اور اشیق کی ہلاکتوں کے معاملے پر ہے۔ عدالت نے غیر قانونی ہلاکتوں اور جعلی پولیس encounters کے خلاف سخت موقف اختیار کیا، اور صوبائی پولیس افسر کی جانب سے جعلی encounters کے خاتمے کے عزم کی تعریف کی۔
**فیصلے کی اہم نکات:**
1. **غیر قانونی حلاکتوں کے الزامات**: درخواست گزار نے الزام لگایا کہ شاہزاد اور اشیق پولیس کی غیر قانونی حراست میں تھے اور ان کی بازیابی کی درخواست دی۔ عدالت نے پولیس کے عمل پر سوال اٹھایا اور تحقیقات کا مطالبہ کیا۔
2. **آئینی اور بین الاقوامی معیارات**: عدالت نے کہا کہ غیر قانونی ہلاکتیں پاکستانی آئین اور بین الاقوامی انسانی حقوق کے قوانین کی خلاف ورزی ہیں۔
3. **قانونی اور اخلاقی مسائل**: عدالت نے جعلی encounters کی سخت مذمت کی اور پولیس کی شفافیت اور جوابدہی پر زور دیا۔
4. **جواب اور اصلاحات**: عدالت نے وفاقی تحقیقاتی ایجنسی کو تحقیقات مکمل کرنے کی ہدایت کی اور امید ظاہر کی کہ جعلی encounters کی روک تھام کے لیے جاری کردہ سرکلر کو پوری طرح نافذ کیا جائے گا۔
5. **نتیجہ**: عدالت نے درخواست کو نمٹایا اور واضح کیا کہ جعلی encounters کی روک تھام کے اقدامات کو یقینی بنایا جائے۔
یہ کیس پولیس کی کارروائیوں کی قانونی اور اخلاقی حیثیت پر روشنی ڈالتا ہے اور انصاف کی فراہمی میں شفافیت کی اہمیت کو اجاگر کرتا ہے۔
فیصلے کی کہانی یہ ہے کہ شاہزاد اور اشیق نامی دو افراد کو پولیس نے غیر قانونی حراست میں رکھا تھا۔ درخواست گزار نے دعویٰ کیا کہ یہ دونوں افراد پولیس کی غیر قانونی حراست میں ہیں اور ان کی بازیابی کی درخواست کی۔
7 جون 2024 کو، پولیس کے اسٹیشن ہاؤس افسر کو عدالت میں پیش ہونے کا حکم دیا گیا۔ بعد میں معلوم ہوا کہ دونوں افراد کو پولیس کے ساتھ مبینہ تصادم میں ہلاک کر دیا گیا ہے، اور اس واقعے کا مقدمہ بھی درج کیا گیا تھا۔ عدالت نے اس پر تحقیقات کا مطالبہ کیا، لیکن پیش کردہ ریکارڈ مکمل نہیں تھا اور تحقیقات میں قانونی طریقہ کار کی خلاف ورزی ہوئی تھی۔
عدالت نے اس معاملے کی سنجیدگی کو مدنظر رکھتے ہوئے تمام متعلقہ حکام کو طلب کیا اور ان کی کارکردگی پر سوالات اٹھائے۔ فیصلے میں کہا گیا کہ غیر قانونی ہلاکتیں بنیادی انسانی حقوق کی خلاف ورزی ہیں اور ان کے خلاف سخت کارروائی کی ضرورت ہے۔
عدالت نے صوبائی پولیس افسر کی طرف سے جعلی پولیس encounters کے خلاف سخت رویہ اور اصلاحات کے عزم کی تعریف کی۔ عدالت نے وفاقی تحقیقاتی ایجنسی کو تحقیقاتی عمل مکمل کرنے کی ہدایت کی اور توقع ظاہر کی کہ پولیس کی طرف سے جاری کردہ سرکلر کے مطابق جعلی encounters کی روک تھام کی جائے گی۔
یہ لاہور ہائی کورٹ کا فیصلہ ہے جو شاہزاد اور اشیق کی ہلاکتوں کے معاملے پر ہے۔ اس فیصلے میں کئی اہم نکات شامل ہیں:
1. **غیر قانونی ہلاکتوں کے الزامات**: درخواست گزار نے یہ درخواست دی کہ مبینہ طور پر غیر قانونی حراست میں رکھے گئے شاہزاد اور اشیق کی بازیابی کے لیے کارروائی کی جائے۔ عدالت نے پولیس کے عمل کو مشکوک پایا اور اس کی تحقیقات کا مطالبہ کیا۔
2. **آئینی اور بین الاقوامی معیارات**: فیصلے میں یہ بات واضح کی گئی ہے کہ غیر قانونی ہلاکتیں پاکستانی آئین اور بین الاقوامی انسانی حقوق کے قوانین کی خلاف ورزی کرتی ہیں، جیسے کہ عالمی اعلامیہ برائے حقوقِ انسانی اور بین الاقوامی عہد نامہ برائے شہری اور سیاسی حقوق۔
3. **قانونی اور اخلاقی مسائل**: عدالت نے جعلی پولیس encounters کی سخت مذمت کی اور پولیس کے عمل میں شفافیت اور جوابدہی کی ضرورت پر زور دیا۔ عدالت نے قانون کے مطابق عمل کرنے اور غیر قانونی اقدامات کو مسترد کرنے کی ضرورت پر روشنی ڈالی۔
4. **جواب اور اصلاحات**: صوبائی پولیس افسر کے جعلی encounters کے خلاف عزم کا نوٹ لیا گیا۔ عدالت نے ہدایت دی کہ وفاقی تحقیقاتی ایجنسی کے ذریعے تحقیق کی جائے، جس کی نگرانی قومی کمیشن برائے انسانی حقوق کرے، اور یہ عمل "تشویش اور حراستی ہلاکتوں (پیشگی اور سزا) ایکٹ، 2022" کے مطابق ہونا چاہئے۔
5. **نتیجہ**: عدالت نے اس درخواست کو نمٹادیا اور اس امید کا اظہار کیا کہ جعلی encounters کے خلاف جاری کردہ سرکلر کو پوری طرح نافذ کیا جائے گا۔
یہ کیس قانون نافذ کرنے والے اداروں کی قانونی اور شفاف کارروائی کی اہمیت اور انصاف کے اصولوں پر عمل درآمد کی ضرورت کو اجاگر کرتا ہے۔
.
Stereo. H C J D A 38.
Judgment Sheet
IN THE LAHORE HIGH COURT, LAHORE
JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT
Crl. Misc. No. 36448-H/2024
(Mst. Farzana Bibi vs. Capital City Police Officer, etc.)
JUDGMENT
Date of hearing:
13.06.2024
Petitioner by:
Malik M. Sajjad Nawaz, Advocate
State by:
Mr. Shahid Nawab Cheema AAG,
Hafiz Asghar Ali and Mr. Muhammad
Moeen Ali Deputy Prosecutors General
with Dr. Usman Anwar, Provincial
Police Officer, Zeeshan Asghar DIG
(Investigation), Faisal Kamran DIG
(Operation), Malik Awais, DIG
(Legal),
Abdul Hanan, S.P.
(Operations) Civil Lines, Safdar SI,
Touqeer SI, Javed SHO, Ali Jan Khan,
Secretary S&ME, Dr. Muhammad
Akhtar, M.S., Mian Munshi Hospital,
Dr. Mansoora Mirza, Assistant
Professor, Forensic Department
KEMU, Lahore.
Respondents by:
M/s Asad Manzoor Butt, Qadir Bakhsh
Chahal, Hafiz M. Nauman Zafar and
Hafiz Sami ur Rehman, Advocates.
ALI ZIA BAJWA, J.:- Through this petition filed
under Section 491 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1898 (hereinafter
‘the Code’) the recovery of the alleged detenus, namely Shahzad and
Asheek, has been sought. It has been asserted that the detenus are
currently held in illegal and improper custody by the respondent,
No.2/Station House Officer of Police Station Sundar, Lahore.
2.
On 07.06.2024 respondent No.2, the Station House Officer
of Police Station Sundar, Lahore, was directed to present the
Crl. Misc. No36448-H/2024
(2)
detenus before the Court on the next scheduled hearing date. On that
date of hearing, the learned law officer informed the Court that the
detenus were killed in an alleged police encounter within the territorial
jurisdiction of Police Station Lytton Road, Lahore. Consequently, FIR
No. 1042/2024 has been registered under Sections 302, 353, 186, and
34 of the Pakistan Penal Code, read with Section 13-2(a) of the Punjab
Arms Ordinance, 1965. The Deputy Inspectors General of Police,
Operations and Investigation Wing, were summoned to appear with the
complete case record. Shockingly, the records presented were
incomplete, due process had not been followed, and mandatory
procedures were bypassed. Such a dire and distressing state of affairs
necessitated the summoning of the Provincial Police Officer and the
Secretary Health, Government of Punjab.
3.
Arguments heard; record perused.
4.
In this case, the tragic loss of two young men in an
alleged police encounter under suspicious circumstances has cast a
long shadow over the entire chain of incidents. The mishandling of
their bodies and the botched investigation have added fuel to the fire,
making the entire affair appear highly dubious. It is as if the police
authorities have opened a Pandora’s box, allowing a cascade of doubts
and mistrust to spill forth, tarnishing the credibility of the entire
operation. The incident, shrouded in a fog of uncertainty, called for a
thorough and transparent inquiry to clear the air and restore faith in
the criminal justice system.
5.
Extrajudicial killings are egregious violations of the
fundamental rights enshrined in the Constitution of the Islamic
Republic of Pakistan, 1973. These heinous acts flagrantly contravene
the protections guaranteed under Articles 4, 9, 10, 10-A, and 14,
which collectively uphold the sanctity of life, due process, and human
dignity. Article 4 asserts the inalienable right of individuals to be
Crl. Misc. No36448-H/2024
(3)
treated in accordance with the law, a principle utterly disregarded
when law enforcement operates outside legal boundaries. Article 9
enshrines the right to life and liberty, rights that are irrevocably denied
when individuals are unlawfully deprived of their lives. Article 10
ensures the right to a fair trial, a cornerstone of justice that is
completely negated by summary executions. Article 10-A further
reinforces the right to a fair trial and due process, underscoring the
necessity of legal proceedings before any punitive measures can be
taken. Article 14 guarantees the inviolability of the dignity of man, a
dignity that is irreparably shattered by the brutal and arbitrary nature
of extrajudicial killings. Extrajudicial killings not only breach these
fundamental rights but also undermine the very essence of the rule of
law, casting a shadow over the legitimacy and integrity of the State.
To preserve the sanctity of the Constitution and the rights it
guarantees, it is imperative to categorically condemn and eradicate
such unlawful practices.
6.
Extrajudicial killings are severe breaches of human rights
and international law, involving the unlawful execution of individuals
without due process, often carried out by law enforcement agencies.
Key international laws addressing this issue include the Universal
Declaration of Human Rights, 1948 (UDHR) and the International
Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, 1966 (ICCPR). Article 3 of
the UDHR and Article 6 of the ICCPR protect the right to life and
prohibit arbitrary deprivation of life. The United Nations has
established principles for preventing and investigating extrajudicial
killings. These include the UN Principles on the Effective Prevention
and Investigation of Extra-Legal, Arbitrary, and Summary Executions,
1989 and the Basic Principles on the Use of Force and Firearms by
Law Enforcement Officials, 1990. These legal instruments emphasize
thorough, prompt, and impartial investigations and the necessity of
proportional and last-resort use of force by law enforcement. The
United Nations plays a crucial role in addressing extrajudicial killings
Crl. Misc. No36448-H/2024
(4)
through mechanisms like the Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial,
summary, or arbitrary executions, who investigates and reports on
such violations. States are obligated to prevent, investigate, and
punish extrajudicial killings and provide remedies to victims, ensuring
compliance with international human rights standards.
7.
The criminal justice system is designed to ensure that
every individual, regardless of their alleged crimes, is entitled to a fair
trial. This process is integral to upholding the rule of law, maintaining
public confidence in justice, and protecting human rights. When
police officers take the law into their own hands, they corrode this
trust and subvert the criminal justice system. They assume the roles of
judge, jury, and executioner, which is anathema to the principles of
fair trial, governance and justice.
8.
The assertion that police kill hardened and desperate
criminals in encounters lacks any legal foundation and fundamentally
challenges the credibility and effectiveness of the criminal justice
system. Such an ill-founded rationale is not only legally indefensible
but also morally reprehensible. By bypassing due process and
resorting to extrajudicial killings, law enforcement undermines the
very principles upon which a just society is built. Furthermore, this
practice casts a long shadow of doubt over the integrity of law
enforcement agencies. It suggests a lack of faith in the ability of
criminal justice system to deliver justice and a preference for brute
force over legal scrutiny. Such actions propagate a dangerous message
that the State approves lawlessness among its enforcers. This not only
perpetuates a cycle of violence but also breeds resentment and fear
within the community.
9.
The sacrifices of law enforcement agencies in
safeguarding the lives of citizens are nothing short of highly
commendable and invaluable. These valiant guardians stand as
Crl. Misc. No36448-H/2024
(5)
sentinels at the gates, often paying the ultimate price to ensure our
safety. Their blood becomes the ink with which the story of our
security and safety is written. Their courage and valour play the role
of a shield that deflects harm from our doors. Every drop of their
blood spilled in the line of duty speaks volumes of their dedication
and the profound cost of our peace. Their sacrifices create a sanctuary,
allowing us to live our lives without fear. However, under the guise of
self-defence, fake police encounters cannot be justified. These
nefarious acts, though perpetrated by a small fraction, cast a long
shadow over the honour and integrity of entire police department.
Those who indulge in such nefarious activities must be rooted out
with steadfast resolve.
10.
The right of self-defence is a fundamental right bestowed
upon both individuals and law enforcement alike. For the police, this
right becomes a vital tool in the discharge of their duties, enabling
them to protect not only their lives but also the lives of innocent
civilians. In the realm of law enforcement, the right of self-defence is
not merely a privilege but a necessity. Police officers frequently find
themselves in perilous situations where split-second decisions can
mean the difference between life and death. The law acknowledges
this harsh reality, permitting the use of force to neutralize threats and
ensure public safety. Yet, this power must be wielded with utmost
responsibility and discernment and use of power must be
proportionate to the threat faced.
11.
The complex nature of self-defence can sometimes be
overshadowed by the issue of fake police encounters, leading to
significant ethical and legal challenges. Striking a balance between the
legitimate right of self-defence and the prevention of fake encounters
necessitates a balanced approach. A stringent oversight mechanism
must be evolved within police department. Independent body in the
spirit of The Torture and Custodial Death (Prevention and
Crl. Misc. No36448-H/2024
(6)
Punishment) Act, 2022 should investigate the incidents where lethal
force is used, ensuring that each case is meticulously scrutinized and
that any misuse of power is promptly addressed. Legal framework
should be fortified to delineate clear boundaries for the use of force. It
is a settled law that the right of self-defence is contingent upon the
presence of an immediate and credible threat. Any deviation from this
standard should be met with severe repercussions, reinforcing the
message that extrajudicial actions will not be tolerated.
12.
Training is another cornerstone in this delicate balance.
Police officers must be rigorously trained not only in tactical response
but also in de-escalation techniques. Emphasizing the sanctity of life
and the principles of proportionality and necessity can help prevent
the knee-jerk resort to lethal force. Officers should be equipped to
assess threats accurately and respond appropriately, minimizing the
risk of excessive force. Transparency is also crucial. The public must
be kept informed about the policies governing the use of force and the
measures taken to investigate and rectify any abuses. Body cameras
and other forms of surveillance can serve as impartial witnesses,
providing clear evidence of the circumstances surrounding each
encounter.
13.
In conclusion, the right of self-defence and the scourge of
fake police encounters present a complex interplay of duty and ethics.
By developing oversight mechanism, enhancing training, ensuring
transparency, reinforcing legal standards, and nurturing community
relations, the fake police encounters can be prevented. This
equilibrium safeguards the integrity of the criminal justice system,
affirming that the law, though sometimes wielded in defence, is never
a tool for extrajudicial retribution.
14.
The Provincial Police Officer, upon his appearance
before the Court, unequivocally asserted that the sanctioning of fake
Crl. Misc. No36448-H/2024
(7)
police encounters is untenable, as such actions carry with them severe
penal consequences. His written statement has also been entered into
the record, reaffirming the assertions he made before the Court. A
circular dated 12.06.2024 has also been placed on the record issued by
the Central Police Office, Punjab, Lahore regarding the police
encounters which has been reproduced hereinafter: -
Crl. Misc. No36448-H/2024
(8)
The prompt response of the Provincial Police Officer eloquently reflects his
genuine intent to curb the abhorrent practice of fake police encounters.
Through thoughtful reforms and steadfast vigilance, he strives to restore
sanctity of the criminal justice system and public trust.
15.
Learned counsel for the petitioner informed the Court that an
application concerning the allegation of a fake police encounter has been
submitted to the Federal Investigation Agency for further proceedings
against the implicated police officials. It is anticipated that the Federal
Investigation Agency will diligently complete the investigation under the
supervision of National Commission for Human Rights within the
stipulated time, adhering strictly to the provisions of The Torture and
Custodial Death (Prevention and Punishment) Act, 2022. As a clear
directive has been issued by the Provincial Police Officer, mandating zero
tolerance for fake police encounters throughout the province, this Court
hereby disposes of this petition with the expectation that the
aforementioned circular shall be implemented in its true letter and spirit
without fail.
(Ali Zia Bajwa)
Judge
Order was pronounced and written on 13.06.2024 and after completion it was
signed on 14.06.2024.
Judge
Approved for Reporting
J
Comments
Post a Comment