Pakistan Case Lawโ† Search
1993 MLD 1167

MUREED HUSSAIN vs P.S., CIVIL LINES, D.G. KHAN

Citation1993 MLD 1167
CourtLahore High Court
Case No.Cr. Misc. No,119-H of 1993
Date1993-03-30
Judge(s)Khizar Hayat
ResultPetition allowed

ORDER

' In pursuance to this Court's order dated 21-3-1993, Naeem Iqbal, bailiff, was deputed for the recovery of Wahid Bakhsh (detenu) from the illegal confinement of S.H.O., Police Station Civil Lines, D.G. Khan. He has submitted his report which is placed on record as Mark 'A'. According to this report, the bailiff visited the premises of Police Station Civil Lines, D.G. Khan, on 21-3-1993 at 4-45 p.m. and found Wahid Bakhsh (detenu) confined in a room which opens in the office of the Moharrir. At that time the detenu's feet were chained with Amreekan (an iron ring attached with a long iron chain). No report regarding the arrest of the detenu was found jotted down in the `Roznamcha' of the police station. On inquiry by the bailiff, Mushtaq Ahmad, S.I./S.H.O. told him that the detenu had been arrested in case F.I.R. No,33 of 1993 under section 364, P.P.C., registered at his police station, although the' detenu was not named in it as accused. In these circumstances, the bailiff recovered the detenu and released him on his personal bond.

2. Today, the detenu as well as Mushtaq Ahmad, S.I./S.H.O. are present in Court. The detenu stated that he was arrested by Rashid Ahmad, A.S.I., and had been confined for many days in the police station, and by chaining his feet with "Amreekan". Mushtaq Ahmad, S.I./S.H.O. states that the detenu had been arrested by Rashid Ahmad, A.S.I. in the aforementioned case. He however admits that the detenu is neither named as accused in the aforesaid F.I.R. nor his name is mentioned as accused in any Zimni available with him of that case. He has denied that detenu's feet were chained with "Amreekan" when he was recovered by the bailiff.

3. I have considered the facts and circumstances of the case. Since no report of arrest had been recorded in the Roanamcha of the police station, nor any Zimni, pertaining to said case was produced before the bailiff showing arrest of the detenu, therefore, I would hold that he had been illegally detained at Police Station Civil Lines, D.G. Khan, when he was recovered by the bailiff of this Court.

4. At the time of recovery of the detenu, S.I. Mushtaq Ahmad, was S.H.O. of Police Station Civil Lines, D.G. Khan, who being incharge was responsible for detenu's illegal confinement. Wrongful confinement of innocent citizens by police officers has become so frequent that this tendency needs not only to be discouraged but it must be curbed with iron hand. It is no secret that the police officers who are found responsible by Courts to be guilty of keeping innocent citizens in wrongful confinement, had been rewarded instead of being punished by their department, which is highly deprecable and deplorable. Commission of such offences by protectors of law can hardly be countenanced with approval. It is high time for both the Provincial as well as Federal Governments to rise to the occasion and make effective legislation providing that any police officer or other public functionary found guilty by a Court of law for illegally detaining any person shall not only suffer adverse entry in his Service Book but would also be disqualified for further promotion and any repetition of such a crime would make him liable for removal from service. By such legislation not only innocent people would be saved from injustice but it would also help restoring supremacy of rule of law in the country.

5. As for the case in hand, I hereby set Wahid Bakhsh (detenu) at liberty. Needless to say that detenu had not only been deprived of his liberty by S.I. Mushtaq Ahmad but was ' also humiliated in the eyes of public. Deprivation of liberty of a person cannot be measured in terms of money, but in order to compensate the detenu to some extent and also to make the S.H.O. realise the wrong he committed, it is directed that he (S.I. Mushtaq Ahmad) shall pay Rs,5,000 to the detenu in the office of the Additional Registrar of this Court by or before 13-4-1993. This order is passed by me in exercise of my power under rule 10 of the Habeas Corpus Rules (High Court Rules and Orders Chapter IV-F, Vol.V). The petition is disposed of accordingly.

Cited by 2 cases

For educational and research use only โ€” not legal advice. Verify against the official report before relying on it. See our Disclaimer.
DisclaimerยทPrivacyยทTermsยทSearch