YLR 2009

2009 PLP 2303 (YLR)

MUJAHID and another — Petitioners Versus APA/ADM BARA KHYBER AGENCY and 7 others — Respondents

Jurisdiction / Court
Peshawar
Decided Date
Writ Petition No.1426 of 2009, decided on 17th June, 2009.
Honorable Judges
Ejaz Afzal Khan and Shahji Rehman Khan, JJ
Case Reference Summary (AEO Optimized)
Citation 2009 PLP 2303 (YLR)
Forum / Court Peshawar
Bench Members Ejaz Afzal Khan and Shahji Rehman Khan, JJ
Parties MUJAHID and another — Petitioners Versus APA/ADM BARA KHYBER AGENCY and 7 others — Respondents
Primary Law Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)
💡 Quick Legal QA & Summary / سوال و جواب خلاصہ
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2009 PLP 2303 (YLR)?

This judgment primarily cites: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.

Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2009 PLP 2303 (YLR)?

The case was heard and decided by the Peshawar bench comprising: Ejaz Afzal Khan and Shahji Rehman Khan, JJ.

Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?

Cite this legal precedent as: 2009 PLP 2303 (YLR) (MUJAHID and another — Petitioners Versus APA/ADM BARA KHYBER AGENCY and 7 others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.

Laws Cited

Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)

Representation

  • Shabbir Ahmad for Petitioners.
  • Qaisar Rasheed, A.A.-G. and Iqbal Ahmad Durrani for Respondents.
  • Date of hearing: 17th June, 2009.
  • 3. As against that, Mr. Qaiser Rashid, A.A-G. and Mr. Iqbal Ahmad Durrani, learned counsel for respondent vehemently argued that application of section 86-A, Cr.P.C. would come into play only when a person arrested pursuant to a warrant issued under section 85 of the Cr.P.C. is removed to the tribal area for trial, but in this case the petitioners were already in jail, therefore, they cannot be held to have been arrested pursuant to a warrant issued under section 85 of the Cr.P.C. The learned A.A-G. and the learned counsel further submitted that compliance with the provision of section 86-A of the Cr.P.C. would hardly be called for, as the petitioners will not be removed to the tribal area, because the Court functioning in the hierarchy of FCR are now housed at Peshawar.

Headnotes / Summary

S. 86-A

Constitution of Pakistan (1973). Act.199

Constitutional petition

Removal in custody to Tribal areas

Petitioners had prayed for issuance of an appropriate writ directing the authorities not to arrest and remove them to the Tribal areas without complying with the provisions contained in S. 86-A, Cr.P.C.

Petitioners were arrested in criminal cases registered against them in Peshawar in which they were released on bail

When their release warrants were taken in jail, where they were confined, it transpired that they were also required in a case' registered against them in the Tribal areas

Effect

If the petitioners were required in a case registered against them in the Tribal areas, then resort could be had to the course provided by law

When the. authorities did not resort to the course provided by law, they were out to defeat the spirit of law and such a course could not be allowed

Courts of law, in any case, had to preserve the spirit of law, while preserving its words, notwithstanding the device employed towards that end was quite deft, dexterous and even deceitful

Allowing constitutional petition, it was directed that the petitioners be released forthwith

In case the authorities required the petitioners in the case, they would be at liberty to procure their arrest and put them to trial in the courts functioning under the umbrella of the relevant law after complying with the provisions of S.86-A, Cr.P.C.

Judgment & Decree

EJAZ AFZAL KHAN, J.--Petitioners through the instant writ petition have asked for the issuance of an appropriate writ directing the respondents not to arrest and remove them to the tribal area without complying with the provision contained in section 86-A, Cr.P.C.

2. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners contended that once the petitioners were released on bail in criminal cases registered against them, the respondents could not withhold their release nor could they remove them to the Court functioning in the hierarchy of FCR without complying with the provision contained in section 86-A, Cr.P.C. So long as, the learned counsel added, the said provision is not complied with, their release from jail could not be withheld.

3. As against that, Mr. Qaiser Rashid, A.A-G. and Mr. Iqbal Ahmad Durrani, learned counsel for respondent vehemently argued that application of section 86-A, Cr.P.C. would come into play only when a person arrested pursuant to a warrant issued under section 85 of the Cr.P.C. is removed to the tribal area for trial, but in this case the petitioners were already in jail, therefore, they cannot be held to have been arrested pursuant to a warrant issued under section 85 of the Cr.P.C. The learned A.A-G. and the learned counsel further submitted that compliance with the provision of section 86-A of the Cr.P.C. would hardly be called for, as the petitioners will not be removed to the tribal area, because the Court functioning in the hierarchy of FCR are now housed at Peshawar.

4. We have gone through the record carefully and considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties.

5. The record reveals that the petitioners were arrested in few criminal cases registered against them in Police Station Khazana and Police Station Michani Gate, 'Peshawar in which they were released on bail. When their release warrants were taken to the Jail, they were confined in, it transpired that they were also required in a case registered against them in the tribal area. Assumed, agreed and accepted that they have not been arrested pursuant to a warrant issued under section 85 of the Cr.P.C. nor shall they be physically removed to the tribal area because most of the Courts functioning in the tribal area under the umbrella of the FCR are now housed at Peshawar. But the question arises, why was their release withheld? If the answer to the question is that they were required in a case registered against them in the tribal area, then resort could be had to the course provided by law. When the respondent did not resort to the course provided by law, we would be constrained to hold that they are out to defeat the spirit of law without defeating its words. Such a course, we are afraid, cannot be allowed. The Court of law, in any case, has to preserve the spirit of law, while preserving its words, notwithstanding the device employed towards that end is quite deft, dexterous and even deceitful. We, therefore, allow this writ petition and direct that the petitioners be released forthwith. In case the respondents require the petitioners in the case mentioned above, they would be at liberty to procure their arrest and put them to trial in the Courts functioning under the umbrella of the FCR after complying with the provision of section 86-A of the Cr.P.C. H.B.T./168/P?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Petition allowed.