Mst. Sanam Javed vs Special Judge Anti-Terrorism Court, Gujranwala Ss

Fields are extracted from the reported citation and judgment text. Where a detail is not stated in the record, it is not shown.

Mst. Sanam Javed VS Special Judge Anti-Terrorism Court, Gujranwala Ss. 435, 439-a, 561-a & 167---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 302(b), 324, 353, 427, 431, 186, 148, 149, 505, 188 & 109---Punjab Maintenance of Public Order Ordinance (XXXI of 1960), S.16---anti-Terrorism act (XXVII of 1997), S. 7---Qatl-i-amd, attempt to commit qatl-i-amd, use the criminal force or assault on public servant while he was performing his duty, causes damage or loss of fifty rupees or more through mischief, mischief by injury to a public road, bridge, river, or channel, obstructing a public servant in the performance of their duties, rioting armed with deadly weapon, unlawful assembly, creation or promotion of hatred, enmity, or ill-will between different groups, disobeying an order given by a public servant, abetment, dissemination of rumours, act of terrorism---Physical remand, extension in---Legality---admittedly, trial in said case to the extent of some of the accused had been concluded, whereas, one of the nominated accused, who was declared proclaimed offender, was subsequently arrested on 08.05.2024 and thereafter on 30.05.2024, he got recorded his statement under S.337(1), Cr.P.C, before the area Magistrate, whereby he involved the petitioner along with certain other persons to the extent of abetment---It was stated at bar by the head of the Joint Investigating Team as well as Investigating Officer that except the said statement of the accomplice, there was no other incriminating material to connect the petitioner with the said case---Record showed that accomplice remained on physical remand for twenty two days before recording of such statement, therefore, it could not be said that he got recorded the statement voluntarily and without any coercion---If the statement of the accomplice was given weightage even then at the most it was a case of abetment against the petitioner and it was not understandable, for what purpose in the charge of abetment, physical remand of an accused was required---Only purpose of seeking remand of the petitioner was to prolong her custody---Such aspect had been overlooked by the trial Court while dealing with the request of physical remand of the petitioner and granted the physical remand in a mechanical manner---allegedly, during the period of physical remand, petitioner got recovered a USB containing her videos and one mobile phone of her husband and from the transcripts of the videos available in the USB, it was alleged that the petitioner instigated the co-accused to commit the occurrence---First of all, it was to be noted that the petitioner was behind the bars since 10.05.2023 and admittedly her mobile phone was already taken into possession in case FIR No.96/23---Mobile phone which was allegedly recovered at the instance of the petitioner undisputedly belonged to her husband---Investigating Officer confirmed that the same was active when taken into possession, and when confronted how the same could be connected with the petitioner, prosecution submitted that during investigation petitioner admitted that she occasionally used the said mobile phone---Merely on the basis that petitioner occasionally used mobile phone of her husband, such mobile or the data contained therein could not be used against her---Even otherwise, from the said mobile phone no incriminating material connecting the petitioner with the alleged crime was recovered---Second piece of evidence procured by the Investigating Officer was the USB---Petitioner was continuously in custody of police on the basis of different criminal cases/ detention orders since 10.05.2023 and the FIR of the said case was also registered on the same date---Moreover, it was beyond comprehension that how the petitioner transferred the data of her social media accounts in the USB, when she was already in police custody---Even otherwise, transcript of the USB had been placed and bare perusal of the same showed that it was downloaded from Youtube and her other purported social media accounts, which were active since the day of the occurrence, therefore, it could safely be said that the USB was planted upon the petitioner just to create evidence against her in the case---No date and time of the purported videos of the petitioner was mentioned as such it could not be said with any degree of certainty that the same were prior or after the protest---Besides the above, Joint Investigating Team Head, in categorical terms admitted that mobile phone of any of the co-accused was not taken into possession, so as to confirm that on account of the instigation of the petitioner on social media forum, he/they committed the said occurrence---In such backdrop, Court was of the view that on the basis of evidence created/procured against the petitioner, she could not be connected with the alleged occurrence in any eventuality---Mala fide of the Investigating Officer was also apparent from the fact that in the so-called statement of the accomplice he named a number of persons who instigated him and other party members to commit the crime but he only caused the arrest of the petitioner and one other female and for the rest of the accused he did not give any weightage to the statement of the accomplice---In such view of the matter, it could safely be said that the statement of the accomplice was procured with the sole purpose to confine the petitioner as she had been released on bail in all other cases registered against her---Petition was allowed, in circumstances and the petitioner was discharged from the said case.

Mst. Sanam Javed vs Special Judge Anti-Terrorism Court, Gujranwala Ss — 2025 PCrLJ 148 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2025 PCRLJ