1986 P Cr (PLP)
NAURANG‑‑Petitioner Versus MALIK AYUB and another‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 1986 P Cr (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Sardar Muhammad Dogar, J |
| Parties | NAURANG‑‑Petitioner Versus MALIK AYUB and another‑‑Respondents |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1986 P Cr (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1986 P Cr (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Sardar Muhammad Dogar, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1986 P Cr (PLP) (NAURANG‑‑Petitioner Versus MALIK AYUB and another‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Nisar Ahmad Butt for Petitioner.
- Date of hearing: 17th June, 1985.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑S. 491‑‑Habeas corpus‑‑Detenu recovered from premises of police post‑‑Detenu stating having been in custody for about a month alongwith fits cattle‑‑Police official stating that detenu was not required in any case and cattle having been brought in by somebody else‑‑Since detenu was not required by police in any case, he was set at liberty to go anywhere he liked and Police official was ordered to hand over catty' to person claiming ownership, on identification by Lambardar.
Judgment & Decree
Date of hearing: 17th June, 1985. The bailiff has submitted the report. According to the report, Muhammad detenu, was found standing in the premises of the Police Post. The detenu had told the bailiff that he was in the custody of the police since about a month and so were his cattle. However, he did not complain any sort of maltreatment by the police.
2. Muhammad Ayub, S.I. informed the bailiff that he had not summoned the detenu, nor he was required in any case and that the cattle were also not brought by him. He also informed the bailiff that the cattle were brought by somebody else while found moving unattended.
3. The S.I. has stated in Court that Muhammad is not required in any case. He has repeated the story narrated by him to the bailiff about the cattle having been brought by somebody else. He has stated that Muhammad was asked by him to take away the cattle after giving proof of his ownership and since he had not produced any proof, the cattle were not released by him. However, he conceded that he had not taken any steps for disposal of the cattle in accordance with law. He has further stated that he is prepared to return the cattle to the detenu.
4. Since Muhammad is not required by the police in any case, he is set at liberty and may go wherever he likes.
5. The Sub‑Inspector is directed to hand over the cattle to the petitioner, who claims the ownership, on the identification of the Lambardar of the village of the petitioner. The petitioner and the detenu have been informed that they may proceed against the respondents in any manner, for alleged illegal detention of Muhammad, if so advised. The petition stands disposed of.
6. However, it is directed that a copy of the petition, a copy of the report of the bailiff and a copy of the order may be sent to the S.S.P., Faisalabad, who will look into the matter and also the conduct of the police officials. S. A. Order accordingly accepted.