MUHAMMAD ALI and anothers vs THE STATE
This matter arises from a bail application filed on behalf of Muhammad Ali and Moneer Ahmad facing trial under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 pursuant to an F.I.R. registered at Police Station Khairpur. The core legal question concerns the legality of the petitioners' continued detention in jail given that the police failed to obtain a judicial remand order from a court of competent jurisdiction since the case was transferred back from Martial Law Authorities. The Lahore High Court held that the petitioners' detention without a valid judicial remand order is illegal and accordingly granted them post-arrest bail, subject to furnishing surety bonds, while clarifying that the State or complainant may seek bail cancellation upon submission of the challan. The key principle laid down is that prolonged detention without a valid judicial remand from a competent court renders custody unlawful and entitles an accused to bail, while also attracting potential penal consequences for the responsible investigating officer.
- Does the failure of the police to obtain a judicial remand order render the continued detention of an accused illegal?
- Is an accused entitled to post-arrest bail when their detention in jail is found to be without lawful authority due to lack of judicial remand?
- Can a court order notice to be issued to an investigating officer for potential illegal confinement when no judicial remand has been secured?
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 343, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
' This is an application for bail on behalf of Muhammad Ali and Moneer A hmad petitioners in a case under section 302/34, P.P.C. Registered at P.S. Khairpur vide F.I.R. No,50, dated 2-4-1984.
2. The prosecution case is that the petitioners and 3 others in furtherance of their common object caused the death of Khuda Bakhsh on 2-4-1984 in the area of Bonga Yarani.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that from 29-7-1984 when the case was received back from Martial Law Authorities for trial before Civil Court, the police did not care to get judicial remand of the petitioners and as such, their detention in jail is illegal. Learned counsel for the State while frankly conceding on the instructions of Ahmed Din, the Investigating Officer that no remand order was obtained by the police for judicial custody of the petitioners since 29-7-1984, has opposed the plea for bail of the petitioners on the ground that the chailan is very much ready for presentation before the Court and the same is in fact lying with District Attorney, Bahawalpur.
41 have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties with care. I find that since 29-7-1984 no order from any Court of competent jurisdiction for judicial custody of the petitioners has been obtained. The detention of the petitioners is, therefore, no more legal. In this view of the matter, there is no option but to release the petitioners on their furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs,50,000 with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of A.C/Duty Magistrate, Hasilpur. It would, however, be open to the State/complainant to move application for cancellation of bail after the submission of challan or as and when necessary.
5Since the police did not care to obtain orders for judicial custody of the petitioner from Court of competent jurisdiction, prima facie, a case of illegal confinement punishable under section 343, P.P.C. Is B made out, Let a notice be issued to Ahmad Din, 1.0., to show cause why a case under section 343, P.P.C. Be not got registered against him. P.D.S.P., Bahawalpur and District Attorney, Bahawalpur shall also be summoned for 24-10-1984.
Cited by 5 cases
- ZAHEER-UD-DIN vs The STATE 2018 MLD 1604
- SAFIA BIBI vs THE SUPERINTENDENT OF CAMP_CENTRAL JAIL, LAHORE and another 1996 P Cr. L J 1455
- AYUB vs THE STATE 1992 P Cr. L J 357
- Mst. IQBAL BIBI vs THE STATE 1990 P Cr. L J 1831
- ALLAH DITTA vs THE STATE and another- 1991 P Cr. L J 408