2021 P Cr. L J 593
[Lahore (Multan Bench)]
(a) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)---
----S. 491---Police Rules, 1934, Rr. 22.3 & 22.4---Habeas corpus petition---Police Officer to maintain manual register---Scope---Bailiff, on direction of court, produced detenus before court and in his report, he submitted that arrest of detenus was shown in roznamcha front desk but no manual roznamcha was available with the police---Station House Officer appeared in the court along with three detenus and stated that they were arrested in two criminal cases and their arrest was also incorporated in the computerised Daily Diary---Record showed that none of the detenus was nominated as accused in either of the two cases---Station House Officer stated that detenus were implicated in the case through the supplementary statements made by the complainants of both the cases---Complainant in his supplementary statement recorded in one case, nominated one detenu and that too solely on the basis of suspicion---Complainant in supplementary statement mentioned names of all the three detenus but in a general manner, without even raising a suspicion about their involvement in the occurrence---Supplementary statements, which were solely made basis for the arrest of detenus, upon scrutiny of record were found to be dubious and prepared for knitting a defence so as to frustrate the present petition---Record showed that no warrant of arrest were obtained, which was essentially required keeping in view the afflux of time between supplementary statement and the date of arrest of detenus---Initially a naive effort was made to defend said supplementary statements but when the SHO was apprised that their genuineness could be ascertained by summoning Register No. V and the absence therein of corresponding entry of the relevant case diaries would entail serious consequences, he retreated from his stance and resorted to silence---Record showed that despite repeated asking of bailiff, the police files of both the cases were not placed before him---Detenus informed the bailiff that they were being unlawfully confined within the precincts of police station for the last four days and that too without getting any court order---No entry about the arrest of detenus was incorporated in Daily Diary in consonance with R. 22.48 of Police Rules, 1934---Though the projected incriminating supplementary statements were recorded on 24.03.2020, however, till 11.05.2020, date of alleged arrest, no arrest warrants were obtained by the police---All the said factors convincingly demonstrated that the victims were kept in police captivity unlawfully and improperly---Bailiff was a court official and in habeas petitions visited police stations under authority of Court, thus his demand for examination of record and search of police station was to be met with acceptance---Refusal to meet with the requirements of bailiff, essential for executing the Court order, made the delinquent Police Official vulnerable to initiation of contempt of court proceedings---Comments submitted by SHO, admitted that twenty eight goats were taken into police possession under S. 550, Cr.P.C., on 27.02.2020 vide Entry No.31 of even date incorporated in Station Diary---Goats, though according to police, were impounded after being found abandoned by unknown persons but no corresponding entry was made in Register No.VII in accordance with Rr. 22.20 & 22.57 of Police Rules, 1934---Since the Court had already arrived at an irresistible conclusion that the detenus fell prey to police excess of unlawful detention, attributable to SHO and Police Constable/ respondents, thus deserved award of compensation to be paid by both the offending Police Officials---As a necessary corollary, SHO was directed to pay Rs.20,000/- to the detenus as compensation------So far as Police Constable was concerned, highhandedness pointed to him by the detenus was on much higher pedestal as he not only made unlawful ingress in the house of the victims but also maltreated the female inmates---Besides that point, Police Constable not only caused embarrassment to all the officials of concerned police station but also disgraced the martyrs of police department---In such circumstances, Police Constable was burdened to pay Rs.40,000/- to the detenus as compensation---Since an opinion affirmative to plea of detenus of unlawful detention was formed, hence they were set at liberty---Petition was disposed of accordingly.
(b) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)---
----S. 491---Habeas petition---Requirements---While deciding the habeas petition, the court had to carefully scan the record so as to ascertain that the victim was deprived of his liberty in accordance with law or otherwise---Court, for achieving that objective, could examine the facts of case, information forming basis of detention and the counter defence put forth against such plea.
(c) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)---
----S. 491---Constitution of Pakistan, Arts. 9, 10 & 14---Habeas petition---Duty of court---If sufficient material was discernible from the facts and record of the case that an individual was kept in captivity unlawfully by a Police Official, the Courts had to come forward with a pragmatic approach for the protection of fundamental rights guaranteed under Arts. 9, 10 & 14 of the Constitution and must not hesitate in awarding even cost/compensation to the victim---Such amount was to be paid by none other than the delinquent Police Officials---Court, in appropriate cases, might pass an order for registration of criminal case as well as initiation of departmental proceedings against the delinquent---Even otherwise, how a public functionary could be let off so as to go scot-free when he was found to have infringed the right of an ordinary individual, guaranteed to him under the Constitution---Such an approach would render the provisions embodied in Arts. 9, 10 & 14 of the Constitution as nullity---Courts were saviors of the fundamental rights granted to the subjects of a State and must guard them enviously.
0 Comments