LAHORE: The Lahore High Court has decided that an investigating agency’s fresh charge alone does not allow for the re-arrest of a defendant who is out on bail in the same case.
“Granting law enforcement agencies the unbridled power to evade court orders would essentially allow them to arrest an accused who has already been granted bail by simply adding new offenses to the case, without first seeking the cancellation of existing bail,” Justice Ali Zia Bajwa argued in a ruling.
The judge warned that if this conduct continues unchecked, it will herald a move toward a system in which people’s liberty are subjugated to the whims of the prosecution.
He pointed out that the body of legal precedent pertaining to bail is founded on the presumption of innocence and acts as a safeguard against the possibility of unjustified imprisonment. He noted that allowing law enforcement organizations to undermine this judicial protection simply by bringing charges after the fact is undermining the fundamentals of the legal system.
Judge observes that law enforcement organizations cannot be granted unlimited power to disobey court orders.
The Punjab Police Rules, 1934, Rule 26.21(6), which states that “No police officer has the power to re-arrest an accused person who has been freed on bail under Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure,” is reproduced in the ruling.
According to the police norm, if re-arrest is thought to be essential, the police must apply to a competent court for the revocation of the bail and the issuance of a warrant in line with Section 497(5) of the CrPC.
An official representing the government argued that Rule 26.21 (6) only applied in situations where an accused person was freed on bond following their arrest, not prior. However, Justice Bajwa dismissed this claim. “I fear the learned law officer’s objection is seriously misguided, originating from a scant and superficial interpretation of the rule ibid without understanding its fundamental nature and intent,” he said.
The judge ruled that the government’s reasoning disregarded the core values of justice and liberty that the police rule aims to uphold.
He insisted that the fundamental purpose of the regulation was to safeguard an accused person’s freedom who has been granted bail, regardless of whether the bail was granted prior to or following an arrest.
The judge clarified that the rule prohibiting a suspect from being taken into custody again without first requesting that his bail be revoked is consistent with more general legal precepts of predictability, justice, and deference to court rulings.
According to him, applying this theory to pre-arrest bail situations affirms the fundamental principles of the law rather than deviating from accepted legal practice.
On the basis of new allegations brought by the police, Justice Bajwa also ruled that it was unlawful to re-arrest the petitioner’s son in the same matter after he had been granted bail.
The DIG (Organised Crime, Lahore) declared he had taken notice of the situation when he appeared in court.
He acknowledged that the prisoner shouldn’t have been taken into custody without first requesting that the court revoke the bail that had been granted to him. He gave the court his word that a thorough investigation would be conducted and that any delinquent police officers would face harsh consequences in accordance with the law.
