LAHORE: The Lahore high Court (LHC) has held that police cannot arrest a person or an accused in any case on a supplementary statement.
The court, therefore, warned the high-ranked police officials to ensure that in future, any case involving the implication of an accused through supplementary statement is strictly scrutinised by them to verify whether such nomination is legally warranted.
The court also directed the Inspector General of Police to circulate its order amongst all regional police officers, city police officers, district police officers and heads of investigation across the province for compliance.
The court also called a compliance report confirming the province-wide circulation of the court order through Deputy Registrar (judicial) within fortnight.
The court passed these directions in a bail application of one Umer Farooq alias Ahtisham.
The Additional Inspector General of Police (AIGP) during the proceedings also admitted that supplementary statement is not a sufficient evidence to arrest a person or an accused in any case.
The AIGP (Investigation) also admitted that there is no provision of law in any statute for recording supplementary statement and said the investigating officers tend to record supplementary statements just to fulfill their own ulterior and sinister motives.
He also admitted that in this case, supplementary statements of the complainant and other witnesses were not sufficient to cause arrest of the petitioner because they have not disclosed therein any plausible source of information qua implication of the petitioner in this case.
He, however, promised the court to issue a direction to his subordinates to abstain from arresting any person on such type of evidence.
The court observed that implicating an accused through supplementary statement, without disclosing any plausible source of information, holds no evidentiary value and is not permissible under the law.
The court said ultimately, the reliance on such supplementary statements by both the police in their remand applications and the magistrate in granting remand, without the application of an independent judicial mind, represents an oppressive exercise of power that the judiciary is obligated to curb. The court said, it is an established principle that when an accused is not named in FIR and is subsequently implicated through supplementary statement based on an undisclosed or unverified source, the statutory prohibition of Section 497, Cr.P.C. is prima facie bypassed, entitling the accused to bail.
The court, therefore, allowed bail to the petitioner subject to furnishing the bail bonds to the satisfaction of the trial court.
Copyright Business Recorder, 2026
Comments