1984 P Cr (PLP)
AMANUL, KHAN SIN DHOO-Petitioner Versus SHABIR. HUSSAIN, S. H. O. POLICE STATION SUTRAH, DISTRICT SIALKOT AND ANOTHER-Respondents
| Citation | 1984 P Cr (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Akhtar Hassan, J |
| Parties | AMANUL, KHAN SIN DHOO-Petitioner Versus SHABIR. HUSSAIN, S. H. O. POLICE STATION SUTRAH, DISTRICT SIALKOT AND ANOTHER-Respondents |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1984 P Cr (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1984 P Cr (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Akhtar Hassan, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1984 P Cr (PLP) (AMANUL, KHAN SIN DHOO-Petitioner Versus SHABIR. HUSSAIN, S. H. O. POLICE STATION SUTRAH, DISTRICT SIALKOT AND ANOTHER-Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Muhammad Akbar Cheema for Petitioner.
- Ch. Riasat Ali for Respondent No. 1.
Headnotes / Summary
Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) -- S. 491 - Habeas corpus - S. H. O. admitting to have called detenu being suspect in a registered case but after some interrogation letting him off -Detenu also not pressing for any further action since he required his freedom-Petition filed, in circumstances. Respondent No. 2 in person.
Judgment & Decree
S. 491 - Habeas corpus - S. H. O. admitting to have called detenu being suspect in a registered case but after some interrogation letting him off -Detenu also not pressing for any further action since he required his freedom-Petition filed, in circumstances. Muhammad Akbar Cheema for Petitioner. Ch. Riasat Ali for Respondent No. 1. Respondent No. 2 in person. The detenu has appeared before me. The bailiff has filed his report. Statements of the detenu as also the S. H. O. have been recorded. It has been indicated by the S. H. O. that a case of theft has been registered in the Thana and-that the detenu was wanted as a suspect. However, he denies that he had detained him for any length of time. He states that be called him on 16th Augusts 1983 and that after some interrogation had let him off. 2. The detenu in his own place says that now, he is free. No further action is needed. 3. Counsel for the petitioner presses for costs as according to him the detenu and his mother were maltreated by the respondent No. 1 S. H. O. It is a question of fact. The allegation is controverted. The broad fact is that a case was registered and the respondent had legal power to call suspects. Stricto sensu, there is no justification to burden him with costs. The petition is filed. Security be refunded to the, petitioner. S. G. D. Petition filed.