IMRAN AHMAD KHAN NIAZI vs GOVERNMENT OF THE PUNJAB Ss — 2025 PLD 795 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

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

IMRAN AHMAD KHAN NIAZI VS GOVERNMENT OF THE PUNJAB Ss. 167 & 344---Physical and judicial remand---Distinction---Remand under S. 167, Cr.P.C. differs from that under S. 344, Cr.P.C.---Provision of S. 167, Cr.P.C. allows a Magistrate, whether or not he has jurisdiction to try the case, to remand the accused to either police or judicial custody, depending on judicial determination---Remand to police custody under S. 167, Cr.P.C. is specifically for the purpose of investigation---In contrast, S. 344, Cr.P.C. applies where, due to absence of a witness or any other reasonable cause, it becomes necessary for Court to postpone commencement of any inquiry or trial---Court may, at its discretion, postpone or adjourn proceedings and if accused is in custody, remand them by warrant---No magistrate can remand an accused to custody under S. 344, Cr.P.C. for more than 15 days at a time---Remand under S. 344, Cr.P.C. is strictly to judicial custody and can only be to a judicial lock-up---Provision of S. 167, Cr.P.C. deals with detention during investigation, while S. 344, Cr.P.C. pertains to detention during inquiry or trial. Citation Name: 2025 PLD 795 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case IMRAN AHMAD KHAN NIAZI VS GOVERNMENT OF THE PUNJAB art. 10(2)---arrest and detention, safeguard against---Physical presence of accused---Object, purpose and scope---Remand through video link---Scope---Provision of art. 10(2) of the Constitution aims to protect individuals' Fundamental rights by ensuring judicial oversight of detention, preventing abuse of power, and upholding principles of justice and rule of law---Requirement for physical production of accused before Magistrate is a crucial deterrent to abuse and enhances accountability of law enforcement agencies---allowing video link remand in place of physical production can undermine such protections, especially in our country where custodial torture is a pervasive issue---Impersonal nature of video communication may not offer the same level of scrutiny as an in-person meeting, potentially leading Magistrate to miss subtle signs of distress, coercion, or mistreatment that would be more noticeable face-to-face---Technical issues such as poor video quality, delays, or disruptions could impair Magistrate's ability to provide effective oversight---Existing language of art. 10(2) of the Constitution does not support video link remand hearings---Employing purposive interpretation to justify appearance of accused through video link during physical remand hearings would contradict both the text and the provision's intent and this cannot be permitted. Citation Name: 2025 PLD 795 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case IMRAN AHMAD KHAN NIAZI VS GOVERNMENT OF THE PUNJAB 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 anti-Terrorism act, 1997 by authorities was erroneous which could not justify physical remand of accused without his physical production---Provision of S. 21(2) of anti-Terrorism 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. Citation Name: 2025 PLD 795 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case IMRAN AHMAD KHAN NIAZI VS GOVERNMENT OF THE PUNJAB Intention of Legislature---Determination---When wording is explicit, the Legislature's intent should be understood directly from the text, without resorting to interpretative aids.

IMRAN AHMAD KHAN NIAZI vs GOVERNMENT OF THE PUNJAB Ss — 2025 PLD 795 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2025 PLD