Remand (Part 2)

Physical torture is strictly prohibited in law, and it is a crime, even if it is a police officer doing it to an accused. A police officer has absolutely no authority that, just because he has physical remand of an accused, he is free to inflict physical suffering of any kind, even mental suffering is not permitted to them.

Now, a question is repeatedly asked: sir, at night, they beat people up badly at night, they do this and that. Well, in the society we live in, we listen neither to our lawyer nor to any wise person, we don't accept their advice, we only accept what the police say. About the police it is well known that the police are not sympathetic even to their own father, keep this firmly in your mind, this is absolutely true. If a police officer is torturing you at night and giving you a fine breakfast in the morning, saying, we have to produce you in court in the morning, understand that he is getting you that fine breakfast at your own family's expense, so that he can then take further remand and torture you again at night. We fail to understand this when we are in police custody, and our lawyer keeps telling us, get this stopped, it's in your interest, and in the end they suffer for it.

Your very first responsibility, the moment you are subjected to physical suffering, is that your family should find out. Suppose a person is given three days' remand, and the very day he goes into custody he is subjected to torture. Now some people think, since three days' remand has been granted, he will only be produced again on the third day. No, that's not how it is. Your family should immediately file an application in court that, sir, the accused is being physically tortured. The court will immediately summon the accused, saying, bring him here, produce him. The court will order right then, sir, get his medical examination done, and if the medical exam reveals torture, that policeman loses his job. We just keep being afraid.

A notion has taken hold in Pakistan about investigation, that during physical remand torture is inevitable, and we have accepted this, we have accepted this and imposed it upon ourselves, when it is not actually so. Stand up for your rights. It is in your interest. You file an application saying the accused is being physically tortured. Whether or not he is called before the court immediately, the court, right then, tells the SHO or gives directions to the investigating officer that his medical exam must be done today itself. That's how it should work: the court's notice reaches the police station, not that you take the application yourself and go to the investigating officer saying get his medical exam done, that won't help at all.

What matters is what is on the record. The court has ordered, sir, get his physical examination done, and asks that this notice be sent to the police station through the naib court (court bailiff). The naib court will immediately go to the police station, make an entry in the daily diary (roznamcha), and after making the entry, hand that order to the investigating officer personally. Then let's see how he avoids getting the medical exam done. And let's see how, out of the fear that we'll be implicated in more cases, you write in your application that, sir, physical torture is being carried out, we told them not to, this is unlawful, and they said if you tell anyone we tortured you physically, you will never get out of jail for the rest of your life, I'll implicate you in more and more cases. Write it all down. The reason the police have become so bold is precisely this, that the complainant stays quiet. At the same time, the rights available to the accused during physical remand are also available to the complainant. He got three days' remand and the policeman went off to sleep, the accused was seated in a VIP room, meals are being brought to him, there are people flattering him, he's getting full VIP protocol. Why should the complainant wait three days just because, sir, physical remand was granted for investigation?

I have gone and seen these conditions myself. He should immediately apply to the magistrate: sir, I have seen these conditions, my case is being ruined, remand after remand, I have even heard them say themselves, complete the fourteen days of remand, no recovery will happen, we'll send him to jail once the fourteen days of remand are complete. Get that application onto the record. The magistrate has two kinds of authority, the administration of justice is very broad, the honourable judges of the High Court do not have as much authority, the honourable judges of the Supreme Court do not have as much authority, as a local magistrate has. If such an application comes in, the magistrate can even go to the police station in person to see what conditions prevail there.

What the Chief Justice of Pakistan did was: a sub-jail that had been declared a hospital, and the actual jail, he inspected both. From one, honey and olives were recovered; from another, from the death cell, Chinese food and fine meals were recovered. This is the magistrate's job, this power, this authority, lies with a magistrate. Just wake up, go tell the court this is what's happening, believe me, magistrates also take pleasure in it when someone comes and says, we are going to exercise our authority. The High Court will praise them, saying, yes, a magistrate exercised his authority absolutely correctly, and if a magistrate goes and sees this for himself, matters take a completely different turn.

Now the law adds further restrictions. Suppose there are three cases against one accused at one police station. Now, out of ignorance of the law, what does the policeman do? He puts the arrest in one case, takes remand on it, keeps taking remand for eleven days, twelve days, thirteen days, fourteen days, seven days, however long, keeps taking remand. When the magistrate sends him to judicial custody, saying, no, sir, no more remand will be given, he then comes and puts the arrest in the second case and takes remand again, then that runs for seven, eight days, ten days, twelve days, whatever it is, then he goes to judicial custody again, and then he puts the arrest in the third case. The law does not permit this.

The law says: if there is more than one case at a police station, you must put the arrest in all of them, and you must seek remand in all of them, at the same time. Incidentally, that word has been used, this practice has become stale, it has been discouraged, this move by the police, that if there are three cases at one police station, because, in the eyes of the law, until guilt is proven, the accused is the darling child of the law. Every person is innocent until the charge against him is proven. The intent of the law is not that, once a charge is laid against someone, you tear him to pieces. No, until it is proven, until he falls within the definition of a convict, he is innocent.