Summary: (a) Constitution of Pakistan ----Art. 10(2) & Art. 199 Unlawful detention—Petition filed for recovery of detainee who had been arrested and kept incommunicado in violation of Art. 10(2) of the Constitution—Court-appointed bailiff recovered the detainee from the lock-up of Police Station Sabzazar, Lahore, where he had been held for over ten days without being produced before a Magistrate—Held, such detention was unconstitutional and illegal as the detainee was not presented before a Magistrate within 24 hours as required by Art. 10(2)—Court directed judicial remand and further inquiry into the violation of fundamental rights. (b) Criminal Procedure Code, 1898 ----Ss. 54, 58, 60, 61, 167 Procedure for lawful arrest and custody—Police officials of P.S. Nawankot arrested the detainee based on “Travel Eye App” data showing his absconder status in a Karachi FIR—Detention beyond 24 hours without judicial authorization was in clear violation of S. 61 Cr.P.C.—No compliance with S. 60 or 167, Cr.P.C. for production before a Magistrate—Court observed that the originating police (P.S. Steel Town, Karachi) failed to pursue or receive custody of their proclaimed offender (P.O.) despite repeated notifications—Remanded detainee was only produced before the Karachi Magistrate after High Court’s intervention. (c) Police Rules, 1934 & High Court Rules ----Police Rules, R. 26.20; High Court Rules Vol. III, Ch. 11, Part B Transfer of arrested persons—Held, Police Station Nawankot should have obtained proper transit remand and produced the accused before a Magistrate in the jurisdiction where the offence was registered—Police Station Steel Town, Karachi, remained inactive despite being informed several times, thus violating inter-jurisdictional cooperation protocols under R. 26.20 of Police Rules. (d) Use of Surveillance Applications by Police — Legal Status and Recommendations ----Punjab Police Standing Order No. 10 of 2020 “Travel Eye App” and other digital surveillance tools—Court appreciated the role of Punjab Police's technology-based applications such as “Travel Eye App,” “Hotel Eye App,” “E-Gadget App,” and “E-Police App” in tracking and arresting absconders—However, noted with concern that such tools lacked legal recognition under statutory law—Only existing authority was Standing Order No. 10 of 2020 issued by IGP Punjab—Held, use of such applications must be regulated through subordinate legislation to ensure due process and protect civil liberties. (e) Judicial Oversight — Recommendations for Legal Reform and Administrative Accountability Court directed Registrar to forward judgment to IGPs of Punjab and Sindh, recommending departmental inquiry against P.S. Steel Town officials for dereliction of duty—Also urged legislative bodies to enact rules or laws formalizing the use of police surveillance apps for arrests, ensuring procedural safeguards are incorporated. Disposition: Petition was allowed to the extent of holding the detainee’s arrest and continued custody unlawful. Police directed to proceed in accordance with law; Registrar instructed to notify IGPs and legislative authorities for necessary reforms.

Summary: (a) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) ----Ss. 61, 167, 439---Police custody remand---Scope---Legal parameters---Where a person accused of an offence is arrested without a warrant, he cannot be detained by police beyond 24 hours except under a Magistrate’s special order under Section 167, Cr.P.C.---If an investigation cannot be completed within 24 hours and there are reasonable grounds to believe that the accusation is well-founded, the Magistrate may authorize further detention in police custody, but not beyond 15 days---Duty of the Magistrate includes reviewing police diaries, assessing the accusations against the accused, and evaluating whether sufficient evidence exists to justify police custody remand---In cases of scheduled offences under the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, the Administrative Judge under Section 13(2) exercises powers akin to a Magistrate for granting remand under Section 21-E of the Act, which corresponds with Sections 61 and 167, Cr.P.C. (b) Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 ----Ss. 6, 7, 13(2), 19(1), 21-E---Scheduled offences---Grant of police custody remand in terrorism-related cases---Scope and judicial application---Police custody remand is a crucial pre-trial mechanism that allows investigating officers to gather evidence, verify facts, cross-check statements, and uncover co-accused or criminal networks---Refusal to grant police custody remand without valid justification undermines the investigation of heinous offences---Administrative Judge must exercise judicial discretion while deciding such remand requests to ensure that investigation is not frustrated by premature judicial custody remand. (c) Criminal Law ----S. 365, 365-A, P.P.C.---Kidnapping for ransom---Allegation against accused---Criminal liability---Accused allegedly abducted the complainant’s son and subsequently demanded ransom of Rs. 2 crore via WhatsApp call, leading to the addition of Sections 365-A, P.P.C., and 7 of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, in the F.I.R.---Police raid on the accused’s residence, based on search warrant, resulted in a violent armed encounter where law enforcement officers suffered firearm injuries---Heavy arms and ammunition recovered from accused’s house---Accused had a previous criminal record---Police sought custody remand for further investigation, but the Administrative Judge declined the request and remanded the accused to judicial custody, despite the well-founded accusations. (d) Criminal Law ----Ss. 324, 353, P.P.C. read with S. 7 of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 & Ss. 23(1)(a), 25 of Sindh Arms Act, 2013---Attempt to murder, assault on police, and illegal possession of arms---Accused allegedly resisted arrest, engaged in an armed encounter with police, and injured law enforcement officers---Three separate F.I.Rs. lodged for these offences---Administrative Judge denied police custody remand solely on accused’s complaint of maltreatment, without examining the necessity of further investigation. (e) Judicial Discretion ----Powers of Administrative Judge---Improper exercise of jurisdiction---Failure to consider police remand in a terrorism-related case---Administrative Judge, instead of granting short-term police remand with directions for a medical examination of accused, straightaway remanded accused to judicial custody---Such refusal adversely affected the investigation of serious offences---Administrative Judge’s decision found arbitrary and contrary to law. (f) Judicial Misconduct ----Tampering with remand orders---Use of correction fluid (“whito”) to alter remand order from “police custody” to “judicial custody” without initials---Improper influence alleged---Father of accused present in the chamber of the Administrative Judge for two hours during remand proceedings---Serious procedural irregularities observed in remand process. (g) Joint Investigation Team (JIT) ----S. 19(1) of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997---Jurisdiction of Administrative Judge to order JIT constitution---Scope---JIT formation is a prerogative of the Government, not the judiciary---No party requested JIT formation, yet Administrative Judge passed such an order without lawful authority---Such act exceeded judicial jurisdiction. (h) High Court’s Supervisory Powers ----S. 439, Cr.P.C.---High Court’s power to correct illegal remand orders---Administrative Judges and Magistrates are answerable to the High Court for irregularities in granting remands under Sections 167, Cr.P.C., and 21-E of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997---Impugned orders remanding accused to judicial custody instead of police custody were illegal, arbitrary, and contrary to law---High Court set aside impugned orders and directed Anti-Terrorism Court No. II, Karachi, to decide police remand afresh. Disposition: Impugned orders dated 10.02.2025 and 11.02.2025 passed by the Administrative Judge were declared illegal and set aside. Case remanded to the Judge, Anti-Terrorism Court No. II, Karachi, for fresh orders on police custody remand. Registrar directed to place order before Acting Chief Justice and Home Secretary for possible reassignment of Administrative Judge’s powers under Section 13(2) of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997.