LAHORE (Dunya News) – The Lahore High Court (LHC) has ruled that arresting a person solely on the basis of a supplementary statement is illegal, holding that suspicion, verbal information or a delayed supplementary statement cannot serve as lawful grounds for arrest.
Justice Muhammad Tariq Nadeem issued the ruling while granting post-arrest bail to accused Umar Farooq alias Ehtesham in a murder case. The court also released an 11-page detailed judgment, which will serve as a judicial precedent in similar cases.
During the hearing, Additional Inspector General (Investigation) Shehzada Sultan and other senior police officials appeared before the court. In response to the court's queries, the Additional IG acknowledged that criminal law contains no separate legal provision governing supplementary statements. He further admitted that investigating officers sometimes rely on such statements for improper purposes.
In its judgment, the court held that a confession made before the police is not legally admissible as evidence. It further ruled that a supplementary statement or a statement recorded after a delay, without independent and credible evidence, does not meet the legal threshold required to justify an arrest.
During the proceedings, the Additional IG Investigation assured the court that, in the future, no suspect would be arrested solely on the basis of a supplementary statement.
The court directed the Inspector General of Punjab Police to circulate copies of the judgment to all Regional Police Officers (RPOs), Capital City Police Officers (CCPOs) and District Police Officers (DPOs) across the province to ensure effective implementation of the ruling.
The Lahore High Court also instructed the Punjab IGP to conduct a strict legal review of arrests made on the basis of supplementary statements and submit a compliance report to the court within two weeks.
The judgment establishes the legal principle that, following the registration of an FIR, a supplementary or additional statement alone, without independent and compelling evidence, cannot constitute lawful grounds for arrest. The court observed that such a practice violates the principles of fair investigation and the protection of fundamental rights.