Miraj Zubair Versus Regional Police Officer
The petitioner filed a habeas corpus petition seeking the recovery and production of her husband, who was allegedly kept in unlawful police custody without production before any court. A court-appointed bailiff raided the police station, found the detenue detained, and noted that relevant case files and recovery records were not made available during the inspection. The police claimed the detenue was formally arrested on the day of the raid in connection with an FIR registered under Section 392 PPC, alleging the recovery of a snatched motorcycle. The Lahore High Court observed that the detenue was not initially nominated in the FIR, the supplementary statement implicating him was not produced before the bailiff, and the possibility of subsequently fabricated records could not be ruled out. Holding that the detention lacked lawful justification and was founded merely on suspicion, the High Court exercised its inherent power to convert the habeas corpus petition into a bail application, granting the detenue interim bail for seven days to approach the appropriate court for regular bail.
- Can a High Court convert a habeas corpus petition into a bail petition where the police fail to demonstrate lawful justification for a person's detention?
- Whether the non-production of case records and recovery memos before a court bailiff during a raid undermines the legality of a claimed formal arrest?
- Can an accused person detained merely on suspicion without prompt production before a magistrate be admitted to bail in habeas corpus proceedings?
- Section 392, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
Order
Muzamil Akhtar Shabir, J .--- The petition in hand is moved by Miraj Zubair (petitioner) for the recovery and production of her husband, namely, Arif Ali (detenue) statedly in illegal and unlawful confinement of Station House Officer, P.S. Renala City District Okara.
2. This petition was placed before the Court on 07.01.2025 and in accordance with canvassed grievance, Bailiff was deputed for doing the needful towards the recovery of Arif Ali (detenue). Accordingly, today Muhammad Qaiser Bailiff of this Court submitted a report from which it divulged that he visited the concerned police station on 07.01.2025 at about 06:20 p.m. and found Arif Ali detained in the police station. According to Bailiff, upon a query raised by him, Arif Ali (detenue) informed him that he was arrested from his hotel situated in Sahiwal and is in police custody since 19.12.2024 without formal arrest. The detenue further agitated before the Bailiff that despite being in custody of police since long, he has not been produced before any court. The most important aspect, which emerged from the Bailiff's report, is to the effect that although arrest of the detenue was recorded by the police in Daily diary vide report No.9 at 08.40 a.m. on 07.01.2025 yet the file of the case in which detenue had been arrested was not produced by claiming the same to be in possession of the Investigating Officer, who was not available at the police station at the relevant time. The petitioner claims that she along with her husband had also been taken into custody on 19.12.2024, however she had been released on 24.12.2024 but her husband had not been released and today in support of her claim she has produced an affidavit to that effect in the Court, which has been retained in the file.
3. In compliance with notice of this Court issued vide order dated 07.01.2025, Hafeez Ullah S.I./SHO has entered appearance along with the detenue. On Court's query, Hafeez Ullah S.I. stated that the detenue has been arrested in case FIR No. 1608/2024 dated 24.11.2024 registered under section 392 P.P.C. and red colour motorcycle No. OKM-412 King Hero Model 2017 snatched from the complainant of afore-referred FIR had been recovered from the detenue, who had been arrested on 07.01.2025 and his identification parade was yet to be held. However, it is not denied that by the time Bailiff raided the police station detenue had not been produced before any court. The aforementioned FIR has also been perused by this Court and noticed that it was registered for an incident having occurred on the intervening night of 24th and 25th November, 2024 for the theft of some costly equipment including snatching of afore-referred motorcycle, for which the afore-mentioned case was registered against unknown persons and admittedly the detenue was not nominated therein even as suspect. The report of Bailiff shows that he was informed by the Mohrar that the detenue was implicated in the case through the supplementary statement of complainant but no such supplementary statement of complainant was produced before him. Even the record of the recovery of the motorcycle from the detenue was not produced before the Bailiff and in view thereof possibility of subsequent preparation of record could not be ruled out, hence despite production of police record before this Court, definite conclusion could not be drawn on the basis of material available before this Court that the afore-mentioned motorcycle had been recovered from the detenue, which is required to be established by recording of evidence. In case reported as Sheikh Tariq v. Muhammad Sharif, S.I./SHO, Police Station Model Town, Lahore and another (1993 PCr.LJ 2065), where recoveries against the detenue/accused was found to be suspicious, the habeas corpus petition was allowed and detenue was released on bail. Moreover, where nomination of the accused through supplementary statement could not be established from the record before the Bailiff of the Court, the detenue was released on bail in case reported as Mst. Miran Mai v. Station House Officer, CIA, Multan (PLD 2001 Lahore 459). Furthermore, detenue appears to have been detained merely on the basis of suspicion and in such circumstances in case reported as Ali Ahmed v. Muhammad Yakoob Almani, Deputy Superintendent of Police, Qasimabad, Hyderabad and 5 others (PLD 1999 Karachi 134), the detenue despite recording of his arrest was released on bail in the habeas corpus petition. Needless to mention that this Court is competent to convert one type of proceedings into another type of proceedings which power also includes conversion of habeas corpus petition into bail application where court while dealing the habeas corpus petition came to the conclusion that detention of a person required justification and/or such detention was found to be illegal and unauthorized or had been effected on the ground of suspicion only.
4. From the facts mentioned above, this Court is convinced that the respondents had failed to justify the dentention of the detenue in the police station and while keeping in view the aforementioned affidavit sworn on oath submitted by the petitioner, it convincingly emerges that prima facie the detenue was not lawfully detained by the Station House Officer in Police Station Renala City, District Okara, thus this petition is converted into bail petition and detenue is admitted to bail for next 07 days and is ordered to be set at liberty forthwith in order to enable him to approach appropriate court for getting his bail in case FIR No.1608/2024.
5. With this observation, the instant petition is disposed of.
SA/M-29/L Order accordingly.