| Case ID |
2ca4f4bd-ed7a-4371-a778-0e5841c4ef79 |
| Body |
View case body. Login to View |
| Case Number |
W.P. No. 16900 of 2019 |
| Decision Date |
Nov 20, 2019 |
| Hearing Date |
Nov 20, 2019 |
| Decision |
The writ petition was dismissed by the court, affirming that the petitioner had locus standi to challenge the previous orders regarding physical remand. The court noted that the investigating officer did not make substantial progress during the nine days of physical remand and was not entitled to a further extension without valid reasons. The decision emphasized the importance of adhering to procedural fairness and the obligation of the investigating officer to actively pursue the investigation rather than relying on routine requests for remand. The court found no legal errors in the magistrate's decision to deny further remand based on the elapsed time and lack of progress. |
| Summary |
In W.P. No. 16900 of 2019, the High Court addressed a writ petition questioning the legality of a physical remand order issued by a magistrate. The petitioner argued that the investigating officer's request for additional remand was not justified, as there had been no significant progress in recovering evidence during the initial nine days of remand. The court upheld the magistrate's decision, citing the need for investigative diligence and the rights of the accused. The ruling underscored the balance between effective law enforcement and the protection of individual rights within the judicial process. This case serves as a crucial reference for future petitions involving remand requests, emphasizing the necessity for substantial justification in such cases. Legal practitioners should note the implications of this ruling on the standard of evidence required for remand applications. The case reinforces key principles of criminal procedure, particularly concerning the rights of defendants and the responsibilities of law enforcement agencies. |
| Court |
High Court
|
| Entities Involved |
|
| Judges |
ANWAARUL HAQ PANNUN, JUSTICE,
MUHAMMAD WASEEM
|
| Lawyers |
Malik Muhammad Siddique Kamboh, Advocate for Petitioner.,
Mr. Zulfiqar Ali Sidhu, Assistant Advocate General for State.,
Rao Shakeel Ahmad, Advocate for Respondent No. 5.
|
| Petitioners |
|
| Respondents |
STATE ETC.
|
| Citations |
2021 SLD 432,
2021 PLJ 234
|
| Other Citations |
2016 PTD 1675,
PLD 1997 SC 32
|
| Laws Involved |
Constitution of Pakistan, 1973,
Penal Code (XLV of 1860)
|
| Sections |
199,
324,
336,
337-F(iii),
337-F(i),
417(2-A)
|