2026 P Cr. L J 572

 2026 P Cr. L J 572

[Sindh (Hyderabad Bench)]

Before Muhammad Hassan (Akber), J

ALI ASGHAR and 2 others---Appellants

Versus

The STATE and 2 others---Respondents

Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. S-48 of 2025, decided on 10th

February, 2025.

Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)---

----Ss. 491 & 561-A---Inherent power of High Court---Illegal detention-

--Habeas corpus---Imposition of custom police officials---On a

surprise visit, the Judicial Magistrate found illegal detention of two

persons in a police station---On the report, submitted by the Judicial

Magistrate, the Trial Court imposed costs of Rs. 10,000 each on SHO

and other officials of the police station---Validity---In the present

case, facts, circumstances, the statements of the delinquent and the

reports showed that without a, doubt the two persons were being

detained at the police station, without any entry either registered

under S.154,Cr.P.C., or in the Station Diary of the said police station,

hence without any legal justification---Nothing was brought on

record to show that said two detainees were involved in any case or

any investigation was pending against them---Fact of recovery of

two persons under illegal confinement from the same police station

clearly pointed out towards the state of affairs at the said police

station, which was being used as a detention center for illegal

confinement of these citizens, for whose protection the said police

station was actually established---Illegal confinement of a citizen

impinged upon his personal liberty and fundamental rights

guaranteed under the Constitution of Pakistan, especially when such

act was conducted by those who were appointed and duty bound to

ensure and protect the life and liberty of the detainees---In the

present case, the Trial Court took a very lenient view by imposing

costs of Rs. 10,000/- each, thus, no illegality could be pointed out in

the order passed by the Trial Court, which order was upheld---

Application was dismissed, in circumstances.

Khan Muhammad and another v. S.H.O Police Station Phool Nagar

and 2 others 1995 SCMR 1283; Rana Muhammad Aslam v. Azmat

Bashir and others 2011 SCMR 1420; Mst. Saeeda v. SSP, Larkana and 3

others 2013 YLR 2814; Abdul Majid v. SHO, Police Station Rohilanwali

District Muzaffargarh 1995 PCr.LJ 1209; Abdul Qayyum v. SHO, Police Station Shalimar, Lahore 1993 PCr.LJ 91; Alamgir v. SHO, Model Town,

Lahore 1983 PCr.LJ 76 and Muhammad Bakhsh v. SHO and others 1997

PCr.LJ 121 rel.

Imran Khan Dahri for Applicant.

Ms. Sana Memon, Assistant Prosecutor General, along with DSP

Ghulam Murtaza Mirani, DSP/SDPO City Nawabshah and Inspector

Abdul Rasheed SHO PS Pabjo for the State.

Date of hearing: 10th February, 2025.

ORDER

MUHAMMAD HASAN (AKBER), J.---The Order dated 16.01.2025

passed by the learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge Shaheed

Benazirabad has been impugned by the Applicants through this

Application under section 561-A Criminal Procedure Code 1898,

background whereof begins with an application by Mst. Karima

Lohach under section 491 Cr.P.C in the Court of learned 1st Additional

Sessions Judge Shaheed Benazirabad, alleging her brother s illegal

detention at Police Station (PS), Pabjo at the hands of the Applicants,

serving at the said police station.

2. On such application, the learned Sessions Judge appointed

learned Civil Judge and Magistrate-11 Daulatpur, who conducted his

first raid on Pabjo police station on 12.11.2024, which remained

unsuccessful since no one was recovered, and Report in such terms

was submitted. On a surprise (second) raid on 15.11.2024 at about 1720

hours by the learned Magistrate on the same police station with the

permission of the learned Sessions Judge, although Shahnawaz was

not found, however two other persons, Mehboob Ali and Hesub

Chandio were found in illegal detention at the said police station and

Report dated 16.11.2024 in such terms was submitted by the learned

Civil Judge. After hearing and considering the Report, Show Cause

Notices to the present Applicants were issued, who appeared and

replied to the same, claiming therein that the Applicant No.1 (SHO)

was on the casual leave at the time of the raid and that SIP Qurban Ali

Kalhoro was the Acting Incharge of the said police station at the

relevant time in terms of the leave Order dated 15.11.2024 issued by

the concerned SSP.

3. The matter was then referred to SSP Shaheed Benazirabad for

conducting enquiry through DSP Nawabshah City/ SDPO and to furnish

Report. Consequently, Report dated 24.12.2024 was submitted wherein

present applicants, SIP Asghar Ali Ujjan, SHO PS Pabjo; ASI

Muhammad Zahoor Solangi of PS Pabjo; and HC Khamiso Khan Bhurt of PS Pabjo were found guilty regarding illegal confinement of the

above two persons in the police station.

4. Considering all the above facts, circumstances and the Reports,

the present applicants were found guilty during the inquiry and

therefore vide the impugned Order dated 16.01.2025, Rs.10,000 were

imposed upon each of such officials to be deposited within 15 days.

The DIGP Shaheed Benazirabad was also directed to conduct

Departmental proceedings against the said officials under information

to the Court.

5. Today, the learned AGP has filed comments on behalf of DSP Sub-

Division City Nawabshah, Shaheed Benazirabad, which also supports

the above version.

6. Heard learned counsel and perused the record with their able

assistance. During course of hearing today, to the extent of Applicant

No.1 (SHO), learned counsel for the applicants emphasized the same

plea that at the relevant time, Applicant No.1 was on casual leave and

was not the SHO of PS Pabjo. On this, the learned counsel was

confronted with the statement of the said applicant dated 20.12.2024

during inquiry, wherein he himself has admitted that the charge of the

police station was handed over by him to ASI Zahoor Solangi (and not

to SIP Qurban Ali Kalhoro). The applicant has further recorded in the

Inquiry that since he did not receive copy of the leave Order, therefore

he did not handover charge to SIP Qurban Ali Kalhoro. This was also

confirmed by the statement of SIP Qurban Ali Kalhoro dated

23.12.2024, who stated that he was posted as SHO Daulatpur and

neither charge of PS Pabjo was with him, nor was there any entry in

the Roznamcha of PS Pabjo about handing over charge to him, nor did

he have any knowledge about the leave Order. When confronted with

the above two position, the applicant side was completely silent and

had no justification.

7. As for the others, HC Khamiso Khan during inquiry in his

statement dated 23.12.2024, stated that the said two persons were

brought by ASI Pehlwan Khan and were handed over to PC Imran Ali

Bhatti. Whereas, ASI Muhammad Zahoor Solangi during Inquiry in

his statement dated 23.12.2024 stated that the said two persons were

brought and handed over to me at the police station by ASI Pehlwan

Khan with the instructions that FIR will be lodged against them for

which he will return. Before ASI Pehlwan returned, in the

meanwhile, the subject raid was conducted and said two persons

were recovered from the police station. Lastly, PC Imran Ali Bhatti in

his statement dated 23.12.2024 during Inquiry stated that the said

two persons were brought by ASI Pehlwan Khan and were handed

over to ASI Muhammad Zahoor Solangi. 8. In Khan Muhammad and another v. S.H.O. Police Station Phool

Nagar and 2 others

[1]

, it was observed by the Supreme Court that

Courts are the custodian of personal liberties of persons, hence they

must not be led away by statements which are advanced to justify

illegal actions, and based whereon, I.G. Police was directed to take

departmental action against delinquent police officers.

9. In Rana Muhammad Aslam v. Azmat Bashir and others

[2]

also, in

addition to imposing cost of Rs.25,000 upon the Inspector concerned to

compensate the detenu, the Supreme Court also directed Inspector

General of Police to proceed against them in accordance with law.

10. In view of the above discussed facts, circumstances, the

statements of the delinquent and the Reports, there remains no doubt

in the fact that in the present case, the said two persons Mehboob Ali

and Hesub Chandio were being detained at the police station Pabjo,

without any entry either registered under section 154 Cr.P.C. or in the

Station Diary of the said police station, hence without any legal

justification. Nothing was brought on record to show that they were

involved in any case or any investigation was pending against them.

11. The fact of recovery of two persons under illegal confinement

from the same police station (and filing of a habeaus corpus petition

by a sister, Mst. Karima, for recovery of her brother, Shahnawaz from

the same police station under the same SHO and his team) clearly

points out towards the state of affairs at the said police station, which

is being used as a detention center for illegal confinement of those

citizens, for whose protection actually the said police station was

established. Illegal confinement of a citizen impinges upon his

personal liberty and fundamental rights guaranteed under the

Constitution of Pakistan, especially when such act is conducted by

those who are appointed and duty bound to ensure and protect the life

and liberty of the same detainee. The ordeal met by a detainee after

his unlawful confinement, turns another leaf in the chapter on

usurpation of life and liberty in violation of the Constitution of this

country. The next two disturbing questions which compels one to

ponder would be, (a) if the entire efforts and energies of the entire

force in this station is focussed upon bringing citizens for illegal

confinement and its follow up nefariousness, who would be looking

after the actual duties of nabbing the real culprits and maintaining

law and order in the area? and, (b) on whose mercy, the thousands of

citizens falling under the territorial jurisdiction of this station have

been left up to? One of the factors for the crime graph s upward trend

every year could be the reason that the people posted and responsible

to control crime, get engaged in irrelevant and even prohibited activities, as in the present case. Lack of implementation of check-and-

balance mechanisms allow a free hand to such serious activities

without any hindrance or even notice. I would conclude here, with the

wisdom of the Honourable Supreme Court in Khan Muhammad and

another V. S.H.O. Police Station Phool Nagar and 2 others

[3]

,

To overlook the actions which impinge personal liberties, is to

encourage such violations of law.

12. A Division Bench of this Court In Mst. Saeeda v. S.S.P., Larkana

and 3 others

[4]

, took a very serious note of the illegal confinement of

the citizens at police stations in the following words:

Admittedly, detenus have been detained in wrongful custody by the

police for a period of 4/5 days which was a gross violation of

fundamental rights as guaranteed by the Constitution of

Pakistan, 1973. Suffice it to say, that Police Officer had kept the

innocent citizens in lock up of Police Station in unlawful and

illegal manner and held two youngsters under unlawful

detention for a considerable period of time without producing

them before the Court of law and such high handedness and

disregard of law could not and must not be condoned or

tolerated. Law enforcement agencies should respect the law and

rights guaranteed to the citizens under the Constitution.

Admittedly, respondent No.3, being a police official took the law

into his own hands and rather took away the liberty of two

citizens without the process of law therefore, malicious act on

the part of the police official cannot be brushed aside.

13. For other instances where illegal confinement of citizens has

been consistently discouraged by the Courts, reference can be made to,

Abdul Majid v. S.H.O., Police Station Rohilanwali District Muzaffargarh

[5]

, Abdul Qayyum v. S.H.O., Police Station Shalimar, Lahore

[6]

,

Alamgir v. S.H.O., Model Town, Lahore

[7]

and Muhammad Bakhsh v.

S.H.O. and others .

[8]

14. In the present case, the learned Sessions Judge took a very

lenient view by imposing costs of Rs.10,000/- each, as compared to the

cost of Rs.100,000/- which was imposed around 12 years back upon

the concerned officer by the Division Bench of this Court in Mst.

Saeeda v. S.S.P. Larkana and 3 others supra. Even in the cases

discussed at paras 8 and 9 ibid, the Supreme Court imposed higher

costs of Rs.50,000/- and 25,000/- so as to discourage recurrence of such actions, in addition to referring such matters to the Inspector General

Police of the concerned Province.

15. In view of the above discussion, no illegality could be pointed

out in the Order passed by the learned Sessions Court, which Order is

upheld. A copy of this order shall also be sent to the Inspector

General of Police, Sindh, being Head of the Department in the

Provincial hierarchy, to look into the matter of illegal confinement of

citizens and submit a Report within 30 days, on the actions already

taken, and the measures to reform the department on this issue.

16. The Application is therefore dismissed, in the above terms.

JK/A-68/Sindh Application dismissed.