HASEEBA TAIMOR AFRIDI vs The STATE and another
This matter comes before the Supreme Court of Pakistan upon a petition for bail filed on behalf of a juvenile petitioner, Haseeba Taimoor Afridi, who was detained without incriminating evidence. The core legal question concerns the legality of the petitioner's arrest, remand, and continued detention by the police and Magistrate in the absence of any justifying evidence. The Court held that the arrest and mechanical granting of remand without satisfying statutory requirements under the Code of Criminal Procedure was unwarranted, and consequently granted ad-interim bail to the petitioner. Furthermore, the Court laid down the principle that Magistrates must independently examine the case file to satisfy themselves that accusations are well-founded before authorizing custody, and that Supervisory Officers and Magistrates share responsibility for unjustified detentions.
- Is a Magistrate required to satisfy himself that an accusation is well-founded before granting remand under Section 167 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Whether ad-interim bail can be granted when the prosecution has collected no incriminating evidence against an accused person?
- Are supervisory officers and magistrates responsible for the unjustified arrest and detention of an accused without supporting evidence?
- Section 167, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
' Heard learned counsel for the parties. Learned Additional Prosecutor-General candidly conceded that so far prosecution has not collected incriminating evidence against the petitioner to justify her involvement/detention.
2. We fail to understand that when there was no incriminating evidence as to why the police caused the arrest of the petitioner who is stated to be of 15 years of age and subsequent thereto despite of subjecting her to investigation no evidence was brought on record then why she was sent to judicial lockup. In this behalf the Supervisory Officer, responsible to monitor the investigation of the subordinate officers, is equally responsible. Not only this, the Magistrate Raja Faisal Rasheed who had been granting remand, should have also looked into the file instead of remanding the petitioner to police custody without any justification. Under section 167, Cr.P.C. It is the duty of the Magistrate to satisfy himself that there are grounds for believing that the accusation or information is well founded for justifying custody of an accused with the police.
3. In the circumstances we allow ad-interim bail to the petitioner Haseeba Taimoor Afridi daughter of Taimoor Afridi subject to her furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs,5,000 (Rupees five thousand) only to the satisfaction of the Ilaqa Magistrate.
4. Explanation be called for from the SSP In-charge of Investigation, the SHO as well as the Investigating Officer/Officers, named above, to state the reason for causing arrest and detention of the petitioner.
5. The Magistrate shall also send his explanation through the Sessions Judge, Rawalpindi, to explain as to why without adhering to the relevant provisions of law, noted hereinabove, in a mechanical manner police remand was granted permission of judicial remand was granted ,followed by judicial remand as presently she is in custody in Adiala Jail. Put up on 7th June, 2013.
Cited by 3 cases
- Mian Ghulam Ijaz etc. vs The State etc. PLJ 2017 Cr.C. (Lahore) 1018, 2017 LHC 2917
- Adeel and Etisam vs The State 2015-PHC
- ADEEL Versus State 2016 YLR 2212