SHAHID HUSSAIN vs THE STATE and others
This matter originated as a habeas corpus petition concerning the illegal detention of a citizen by a Station House Officer (S.H.O.). The core legal question addressed was whether the police officer's denial of the arrest and detention was credible in light of the detenu's specific allegations and the surrounding circumstances. The Court found the S.H.O.'s version of events to be untruthful and rejected his claims of ignorance regarding the detenu's status and whereabouts. Holding that the police officer's conduct in detaining an individual without proper record-keeping and subsequently filing false statements was highly objectionable and unbecoming of a public servant, the Court directed the relevant authorities to initiate departmental action against the officer. The Court emphasized the principle that police functionaries are servants of the law, not of individuals, and are not bound to obey illegal orders. Furthermore, the Court reiterated that police officers must act in accordance with the law, as injustice poses a threat to the entire justice system. As the detenu had been released, the petition was dismissed as withdrawn.
- Are police functionaries bound to obey illegal orders of their superiors?
- Does the filing of false statements by a police officer regarding a detention warrant departmental disciplinary action?
- Is a habeas corpus petition rendered infructuous if the detenu is released during the proceedings?
ORDER
1. ' I enquired from S.H.O. In Court regarding the defence which he has taken in reply statement wherein he has stated that he (the detenu) is Nekmard and came to visit him when the Civil Judge recorded his statement. On my enquiry, the S.H.O. Expressed ignorance aanc he stated that he only came to know that he, (the detenu) is Nekmard on enquiry. He did not know detenu before. He also stated that he had not arrested him. He has not kept him at police station nor he was removed from police station to the police quarters. He also stated that he has no previous enmity with detenu. As against this version of the S.H.O., the detenu has specifically stated that he was arrested by this S.H.O. He was kept at police station and that when the orders were passed directing Civil Judge to visit the police station the police personnel removed him to the quarters of S.H.O. Where he was detained so long as Civil Judge was available at the police station. I have no reason to disbelieve the detenu who has fully implicated the S.H.O. It is for the petitioner or the detenu to take appropriate steps for taking action against the S.H.O. In accordance with law. Such an attitude of detaining people without any entry at police station and then filing statements which are known to be untrue to the persons making such statement is unbecoming of a responsible Police Officer.
2. Such an attitude on the part of persons responsible for the lives and liberties of the citizens is highly objectionable. The administration and particularly police must remember that they are servants of law and not servants of any individual, politician or officer howsoever high he may be. Supreme Court of Pakistan has already stated in the case of Mr. Zulfikar Ali Bhutto v. The State PLD 1979 SC 53 that the police functionaries are not bound to obey the illegal orders of their superiors. They should also remember that injustice anywhere is threat to justice everywhere. The conduct of the S.H.O.
3. Under the circumstances I am afraid, is contrary to the established principles of law. I would, therefore, direct the Additional Registrar of this Court to send the copies of all orders passed by this Court to D.I.-G. Police, Hyderabad and S.S.P. Dadu for taking departmental action against such Police Officer and report within six months as to what action has been taken and with what results.
4. A copy of this order may also be given to Mr. Ali Azhar Tunio, learned Assistant Advocate-General who shall also convey the orders of the Court to the high-ups in the Administration. Such orders/ communications shall be placed on record.
5. ' Since the detenu has been released, this petition has borne fruit. Under the circumstances, learned counsel for the petitioner does not press this petition which is dismissed as withdrawn.
Cited by 2 cases
- Khatoon Bibi vs The State etc 2021 P Cr. L J 593, 2020 LHC 2463
- ALI AHMED vs MUHAMMAD YAKOOB ALMANI, DEPUTY'SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, QASIMABAD, HYDERABAD and 5 others 1999 PLD Karachi 134