photo: lahore high court
The Lahore High Court has made a significant ruling regarding the physical remand of arrested individuals, introducing new guidelines for the process.
The court invalidated the extension of the physical remand for the accused Minsha Bomb, stating that the accused must be present in court for the remand, and it cannot be granted without their appearance within 24 hours. The ruling emphasized that physical remand cannot be solely based on the investigating officer’s statement. Instead, the magistrate must use their judicial discretion, considering all facts, and document their observations in the decision regarding remand.
The court emphasized the importance of reviewing the case diary and related documents to establish the accused’s connection to the crime and the necessity for further investigation. The decision highlighted that when seeking an extension for physical remand, the investigation progress during the previous remand should be considered. Additionally, the accused should be given a full opportunity to contest the remand, and their statement should be recorded.
The judgment stressed the court’s responsibility to be satisfied with the necessity for physical remand, recognizing that the freedom of the accused hinges on the magistrate’s decision. Upholding citizens’ rights is a primary duty of the courts, with the High Courts expressing disapproval of remand without proper investigation. Article 9 of the Constitution guarantees citizens’ right to life and liberty.
Moreover, the Supreme Court disagreed with the Deputy Prosecutor General’s statement that reasons for remand are unnecessary for the terrorism court judge, labeling it as a misinterpretation of the law. The Administrative Judge, acting as a magistrate while granting remand, must provide substantial reasons for their decision.
In a case involving Mansha Bomb, the Lahore High Court bench of Justice Ali Zia Bajwa and Justice Shahram Sarwar criticized the Anti-Terrorism Court’s extensions of physical remand without proper consideration of facts. The court declared the extensions null and void due to a lack of substantial records against the accused in the case.
