Accused arrested on supplementary statement: Lower judiciary restrained from entertaining any plea for judicial or physical remand

LAHORE: The Lahore High Court (LHC) restrained the lower judiciary to entertain any request for physical or judicial remand of an accused arrested on the supplementary statement of the complainant.

The court observed that the magistrate or the court concerned should allow the physical or judicial remand of such accused only after the opinion of the prosecutor concerned that also accompanies sufficient material against him.

The court said if the supplementary statement of the complainant is bereft of the source of information for the involvement of an accused, the area magistrate or the court concerned may require the presence of the complainant before giving remand of the accused.

The court held that liberty of a person is a fundamental right enshrined in the Constitution, adding no one can be allowed to curtail that right on the basis of malafide and colourful exercise of authority.

The court observed that a supplementary statement for involving an accused without disclosing the source of information is not an admissible piece of evidence.

The court held that the investigating officer while recording supplementary statement of the complainant should ask the complainant to disclose his source of information.

The court observed that the investigating officer should not arrest an accused straightway upon the supplementary statement of the complainant as he is duty bound to first collect incriminating pieces of evidence in support of such statement and then proceed in accordance with the law.

The court passed these directions in a petition of Mst. Najma Bibi who approached the court for the recovery of her daughter-in-law Mst. Nagina Ashraf from the illegal custody of Daska City police SHO Ikram Shehbaz and sub-inspector Syed Najam ul Hassan.

The court said it is an admitted fact that the alleged detenue was not named in the crime report of the criminal case.

The supplementary statement of the complainant was recorded after 20 days of the alleged occurrence, wherein he did not disclose his source of information qua the involvement of the alleged detenue in the occurrence.

The court was of the considered view that the so-called disclosure of the co-accused, which was even not produced before the court, was insufficient to curtail the liberty of the detenue, which is her inalienable right enshrined in the Constitution.

The court observed that unfortunately, the magistrate has also not applied its judicial mind as to whether sufficient material was available against the alleged detenue to curtail her liberty or not and acceded to the request of the investigating officer for judicial remand of the alleged detenue, which was even not forwarded by the prosecutor concerned, resulting in grave miscarriage of justice, the court added.

The court; therefore, declared the detention of the detenue illegal and granted her post-arrest bail with direction to release her forthwith if not required in any other case.

The court while exercising its jurisdiction granted her bail to prevent her from becoming a ball of ping pong in search for bail from the court of original jurisdiction.

Copyright Business Recorder, 2024