AIRLINK 74.56 Increased By ▲ 0.31 (0.42%)
BOP 5.04 Decreased By ▼ -0.01 (-0.2%)
CNERGY 4.51 Increased By ▲ 0.09 (2.04%)
DFML 37.77 Increased By ▲ 1.93 (5.39%)
DGKC 90.97 Increased By ▲ 2.97 (3.38%)
FCCL 22.60 Increased By ▲ 0.40 (1.8%)
FFBL 32.66 Decreased By ▼ -0.06 (-0.18%)
FFL 9.75 Decreased By ▼ -0.04 (-0.41%)
GGL 10.98 Increased By ▲ 0.18 (1.67%)
HBL 115.90 No Change ▼ 0.00 (0%)
HUBC 136.25 Increased By ▲ 0.41 (0.3%)
HUMNL 10.15 Increased By ▲ 0.31 (3.15%)
KEL 4.62 Increased By ▲ 0.01 (0.22%)
KOSM 5.06 Increased By ▲ 0.40 (8.58%)
MLCF 40.41 Increased By ▲ 0.53 (1.33%)
OGDC 138.00 Increased By ▲ 0.10 (0.07%)
PAEL 27.62 Increased By ▲ 1.19 (4.5%)
PIAA 24.49 Decreased By ▼ -1.79 (-6.81%)
PIBTL 6.74 Decreased By ▼ -0.02 (-0.3%)
PPL 123.10 Increased By ▲ 0.20 (0.16%)
PRL 27.02 Increased By ▲ 0.33 (1.24%)
PTC 14.05 Increased By ▲ 0.05 (0.36%)
SEARL 58.86 Increased By ▲ 0.16 (0.27%)
SNGP 70.19 Decreased By ▼ -0.21 (-0.3%)
SSGC 10.37 Increased By ▲ 0.01 (0.1%)
TELE 8.58 Increased By ▲ 0.02 (0.23%)
TPLP 11.20 Decreased By ▼ -0.18 (-1.58%)
TRG 64.62 Increased By ▲ 0.39 (0.61%)
UNITY 26.55 Increased By ▲ 0.50 (1.92%)
WTL 1.40 Increased By ▲ 0.02 (1.45%)
BR100 7,858 Increased By 19.6 (0.25%)
BR30 25,581 Increased By 121.1 (0.48%)
KSE100 75,195 Increased By 264.2 (0.35%)
KSE30 24,177 Increased By 31.4 (0.13%)

LAHORE: The Lahore High Court (LHC) held that an accused should be produced before a magistrate within official court hours to ensure the transparency of the proceedings being conducted within the formal legal framework.

The court passed this order in a petition of Muhammad Imran who approached the court for the recovery of his brother.

The court observed the common fallacy that police can retain custody of an accused for twenty-four hours without informing any authority is both incorrect and contrary to the law.

Every accused person entitled to fundamental rights: LHC

The court said the request of the investigating agency regarding remand should be entertained in open court during court hours unless there are extraordinary compelling reasons and circumstances for doing so in any other place than the open courtroom. Such reasons must be reflected in the order of the magistrate, the court added.

The court observed that the practice of presenting the accused before a magistrate outside of regular court hours has been deprecated by the courts.

The court said the constitutional courts have been explicitly criticised for lacking transparency and formal procedural safeguards.

Moreover, the practice of presenting an accused before a magistrate at a location other than the court premises, particularly after court hours, significantly impairs the access of accused to legal representation, the court added.

The court said when an accused is produced at a magistrate’s residence or any other unconventional location it inherently restricts his ability to secure an advocate’s presence which is violative of Articles 10 and 10-A of the Constitution.

The court observed that a magistrate is tasked with carefully considering the facts, the law, and the circumstances of each case before making a decision that could significantly impact an individual’s liberty and rights.

Therefore, a magistrate’s role in remand proceedings is critical in safeguarding against arbitrary detention and ensuring that the rights of the accused are protected, the court added.

The court observed, it requires a thorough and thoughtful examination of all aspects of the case to ensure that any decision to grant remand is justified, lawful, and under settled principles governing the subject.

By acting judiciously and with an open-minded assessment of the evidence and legal arguments, magistrates uphold the principles of justice and fairness that are foundational to any criminal justice system, the court concluded.

Copyright Business Recorder, 2024

Comments

Comments are closed.