Handcuffing of female suspects sparks outcry

The women accused, while speaking to The Express Tribune in tears, said that from the time they were brought from the jail to court, presented before the court from the temporary lock-up and taken back to jail, they remained in handcuffs for six to seven hours. They said they had started becoming unveiled because of the handcuffs.

If their dupatta or shawl slipped from their heads, they could not adjust it. They said urination was a natural human need, but using washrooms had become difficult, while meeting children who came from their homes to the courts had also become difficult.

The women said getting into and getting out of police vans had become difficult with both hands handcuffed. They alleged that male policemen, under the pretext of helping them, held them from behind while getting them into the van and held their hands while helping them get down, resulting in women becoming exposed.

They said women were being handcuffed only in Rawalpindi and that no woman had ever escaped from police custody. Senior lawyer Shan Zaib Khan Advocate said the Constitution and law prohibited, and even criminalised, handcuffing women and children.

He said they were approaching the high court against the police officer who had issued the order. He said the Constitution of Pakistan did not allow a woman to be sentenced to death and the order to handcuff women with both hands was illegal and should immediately be withdrawn.

He said women accused who were their clients, as well as their relatives, were facing severe distress and suffering., the order had been issued by the CPO Rawalpindi and was wrong. District Bar Association President Malik Sajid Tariq Awan termed the handcuffing of women with both hands a violation of the Constitution and said the bar was protesting against it.

He said if the practice was not stopped, they would directly approach the chief justices of the Supreme Court and high court. Meanwhile, women accused, whose hands were handcuffed, they had protested against the practice but police CPO's order and that their jobs would be at risk if they did not comply.