KARACHI: The Sindh High Court (SHC) on Wednesday ruled that custodial deaths cannot be allowed to happen and that the argument that there is no other way but violence for interrogation to obtain information must end.

In a case relating to the death of a suspect in police lock-up and allegations of private torture cells being operated by police, the SHC directed the provincial police officer to ensure that no person is permitted to tarnish the reputation of the police force, even from within its own ranks.

While dismissing the bail applications of three police officers in a custodial death case, the single-judge bench of the SHC headed by Justice Omar Sial also directed the inspector general of Sindh police to initiate disciplinary action against the police officials involved in the unfortunate incident.

The then SHO Sakrand Muhammed Mithal Khakhrani, sub-inspector Sabir Hussain Gopang and duty officer at the police station, Yaseen, along with other policemen, have been booked for allegedly torturing a suspect to death in February last year.

Rejecting bail pleas of policemen, bench notes that custodial deaths must not be allowed to happen

The victim Muhammad Nawaz was in police custody in connection with three cases related to dacoity, attempted murder and illicit weapons.

The nominated police officers, through their counsel, filed bail applications and argued that the FIR was lodged 10 days after the incident, the CCTV footage was not obtained, and some co-accused have already obtained bail.

The lawyer for Yaseen also alleged that the victim was subjected to torture at one of the private torture cells run by the senior superintendent of police, Shaheed Benazirabad.

An assistant attorney general strongly opposed the bail applications.

The bench in its order said that admittedly, Nawaz was in the lockup of Sakrand police station, and the applicants were posted there at the time of the incident, and the delay in lodging FIR was well explained.

When the court confronted the lawyers as to how the victim died if the applicants had not tortured him, two of them contended that the suspect was beaten up by public.

However, the bench noted that such an argument lacked force and chronology of events, and the evidence collected did not support it.

The court also said, “Most interestingly, Yaseen’s counsel said that the SSP, Shaheed Benazirabad, runs private torture cells, and it was there that Nawaz was tortured. On the face of it, it seems highly unlikely that the SSP would do; however, this will be determined conclusively once evidence is led at trial”.

It also observed that applicant Yaseen was the duty officer and he was not accused of torturing the suspect, but the alleged action was happening right under his nose; he did nothing to prevent it and had shown criminal negligence in the conduct of his duty.

It further stated that the victim was kept in police custody and his family had also visited the police station, and he was fine at the time of arrest, but was brought dead by the police to the hospital.

The order said that, as per the preliminary ocular and medical evidence, the victim was severely tortured, and the policemen, as well as their supervisors at the police station, have a lot to explain.

“The extent of the use of physical force to extract information must have certain limits drawn, which limits must not be transcended. We will not be a civilized nation if we do not even reach this bare minimum. The argument that there is no other way but violence to interrogate to gain information must end”, it added.

The bench also said, “Custodial deaths must not be allowed to happen. And if they happen, the police must have a logical and reasonable explanation as to what happened. The applicants’ ignorance of not knowing what happened to Nawaz or their claim that the SSP tortured him in his private torture chamber or that a crowd of people had beaten him earlier, upon a tentative assessment, is difficult to believe”.

However, it stated that a conclusive finding can only be given by the trial court after recording and examining the available evidence.

The bench ruled that this order be sent to the IG and the Sindh prosecutor general to facilitate them to note the court’s observations.

It said the IG will ensure that no person, even within the police force, is permitted to tarnish the reputation of the police. “The valiant sacrifices of the police for this country will be in vain if this does not happen”.

Apart from criminal proceedings against these police officers/accused persons, the bench also asked the IG to consider initiating disciplinary proceedings against them.

While dismissing the post-arrest bail applications of the SHO and SI as well as the pre-arrest bail of duty officer Yaseen, the bench directed the trial court to proceed with the trial expeditiously and in a professional and completely neutral manner so that the controversy is not allowed to persist.

Published in Dawn, March 19th, 2026