2007 PLP 258 (MLD)

SH. AZMAT SAEED, J.

Petitioner Mst. Irshad Begum has filed this Constitutional Petition to call in question the validity of order, dated 15-7-2006, whereby the Additional Inspector-General of Police (Investigation) ordered transfer and entrustment of investigation in case F. I. R. No. 88, dated 3-2-2006 registered at Police Station Sadar District Pakpatan to Regional Investigation Multan.

2. Precisely, the facts of the case arc that petitioner was recovered and produced on 23-1-2006. She stated that she was married to Tahir Masood and that she was abducted by the male members of her family and Respondent No.4. In these circumstances Criminal Miscel laneous 29-H-2006 was disposed of allowing her to accompany her husband. Subsequently, on the basis of petitioner's statement, criminal case was also got registered, wherein, accused Sardar Nizam Din (respondent No. 4 herein) had applied for his pre-arrest bail. But the same was dismissed by the learned Judge seized thereof vide order, dated 7-3-2006 and thus while being fugitive from law, Respondent No. 4 is stated to have invoked the jurisdiction of the learned District and Sessions Judge Pakpatan by moving an application within the ambit of sections 22-A and 22-B, Cr.P.C. which too was dismissed on 10-3-2006 by the learned District and Sessions Judge Pakpatan. Whereafter, Respondent No. 4 moved an application seeking transfer of investigation, whereupon, impugned order was passed.

3. The sole grievance being urged on behalf of the petitioner is that Respondent No.4 being fugitive from law was precluded from moving the transfer application without first surrendering himself before the authorities, and, therefore, the consequent impugned order, dated 15-7-2006 is a nullity in the eye of law. To substantiate his contentions learned counsel for the petitioner relies on PLD,1956 FC 43 Chan Shah v. The Crown, PLD 1985 SC 157(sic); 1982 SCMR 911 and PLD 1985 SC 402.

4. Whereas, learned counsels for the respondents state that respondent police functionary had the jurisdiction to pass appropriate order in terms of Article 18(6) of the Police Order, 2002, therefore, impugned order does not suffer from any illegality.

5. It is a settled law that Courts of law would not act in aid of a fugitive from justice and no relief could be granted to him unless he first A surrenders himself before the authorities, Admittedly, Respondent No.4 was fugitive from justice upon dismissal of his pre-arrest bail application by the learned District and Sessions Judge Pakpatan by means of order, dated 7-3-2006. Therefore, his application for transfer of investigation could not have been entertained or the impugned order passed. In this view of the matter, it is a fit case for interference and invalidation of the order impugned. Consequently, by accepting this writ petition I set aside the order, dated 15-7-2006. with direction to the police functionaries to proceed in the matter expeditiously and strictly in accordance with law. F.B./I-64/L Petition allowed.