Case Details

Citation(s)
2025 SLG 5321 2025 SLD 5321 = 2025 PLD 795
Lahore High Court
Writ Petition No. 45901 of 2024, heard on 25th July, 2024.
Before Tariq Saleem Sheikh and Anwaarul Haq Pannun, JJ
Barrister Salman Safdar, assisted by Usman Riaz Gill, Ch. Ishtiaq Ahmad Khan, Ali Hamza, Ch. Hussain Arshad, Muhammad Asif Khan, Zafar Iqbal Mangan, Mian Sajid Ali, Javed Iqbal, Umar Latif, Muhammad Sohail, Muhammad Tahir Tauseef Cheema, Kashif Bashir, Mian Imran Pasha, Arsalan Altaf, Mustafa Imran Shaukat, Amna Liaqat, Salma Riaz, Mohsin Murtaza Cheema, Zarish Fatima, Khaqan Meer, Malik Khalid Awan, Mazhar Ali Haider, Muhammad Abdullah and Syeda Zunaira Gillani for the Petitioner. Ms. Shehzeen Abdullah, Acting Advocate General, along with Ch. Baleegh-uzZaman, Additional Advocate General; Sittar Sahil, Muhammad Farrukh Khan, Falak Sher Bakhsh Gill, Asghar Leghari and Hussain Ibrahim, Assistant Advocates General for
Respondents Nos.1, 3 and 4. Syed Farhad Ali Shah, Prosecutor General Punjab for
Respondents Nos.5 and 6. Zain Qazi, Assistant Attorney General for Pakistan for
Respondent No.7. Rao Abdul Jabbar Khan and Rana Nauman Gohar, Special Public Prosecutors for
Respondent No.2. Research assistance: Sher Hassan Pervez and Asim Murtaza Cheema, Research Officers, LHCRC. Date of hearing: 25th July, 2024.

IMRAN AHMAD KHAN NIAZI---Petitioner

VERSUS

GOVERNMENT OF THE PUNJAB through Secretary,Home Department and 4 others---Respondents

Law: Criminal Procedure Code, 1898

Section: 167, 344

Law: Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997

Section: 7, 21(2), 21-E

Law: Constitution of Pakistan, 1973

Section: 10(2)

 

(a)   Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)---

----S. 167---Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), Ss. 7, 21(2) & 21-E--Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 10(2)---Arrest and detention, safeguard against--Physical remand---Appearance through video link---Accused, protection of---Terms "produced" and "excluding the time necessary for the journey from the place of arrest to the nearest magistrate"---Scope---Accused assailed order of Punjab Government passed under S. 21(2) of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, whereby he was made to appear before Magistrate via video link from Adiala jail, for proceedings related to his physical remand---Contention of the authorities was that order was passed under S. 21(2) of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 to provide security to accused--Validity---Fundamental right of an arrested person to be brought before a Magistrate within twenty-four hours, has been safeguarded under Art. 10(2) of the Constitution---Terms "produced" and "excluding the time necessary for the journey from the place of arrest to the nearest Magistrate" indicate a requirement for physical presence---Provision of Art. 10 (2) of the Constitution is vital in ensuring judicial oversight of detention process, protecting rights of detainee/accused from the moment of arrest---Special provision under S. 21E of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 specifically addresses the issue of remand---Provision of S. 21(2) of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 is a general provision that enables Government to take necessary steps to protect judges, accused individuals, witnesses, prosecutors, defence counsel, and others involved in Court proceedings---Provision of S. 21(2) of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 cannot override S. 21-E of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 and should not be interpreted in a way that nullifies or undermines it---Division Bench of High Court declared that order in question was ultra vires, illegal, and void---Division Bench of High Court further declared that reliance on and interpretation of S. 21(2) of AntiTerrorism Act, 1997 by authorities was erroneous which could not justify physical remand of accused without his physical production---Provision of S. 21(2) of AntiTerrorism Act, 1997 had not granted the Government any authority over remand proceedings, as its scope was limited to matters related to trial proceedings--Division Bench of High Court set aside order in question passed by Punjab Government whereby accused was produced through video link during physical remand---Constitutional petition was allowed in circumstances.

🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register