1992 P Cr (PLP)
Mst. AMIRAN‑‑‑Petitioner Versus AKBAR ALI and 3 others‑‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 1992 P Cr (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Abdul Majid Tiwana, J |
| Parties | Mst. AMIRAN‑‑‑Petitioner Versus AKBAR ALI and 3 others‑‑‑Respondent |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1992 P Cr (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1992 P Cr (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Abdul Majid Tiwana, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1992 P Cr (PLP) (Mst. AMIRAN‑‑‑Petitioner Versus AKBAR ALI and 3 others‑‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Ch. Muhammad Siddiq Virk for Petitioner
- Khizar Abbas for Respondents.
Headnotes / Summary
Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) ‑‑‑‑Ss. 497 & 491‑‑‑Bail, grant of‑‑‑Bailiff, on application of mother of detenu, raided police station concerned and recovered detenu‑‑‑Bailiff reported that he found detenu in police lock‑up and that no entry of arrest was found by him either in daily diary register or in any F.I.R: ‑‑S.H.O. of police station had stated that he under directions of D.S.P. associated detenus with investigation of murder case in which detenus were suspected and he after entering their arrest in case diary, sent them to Police Station, .but before he could reach Police Station, Bailiff raided and could not find any entry in daily diary‑‑‑Bailiff had brought detenus‑‑‑Since arrest of detenus was not mentioned in daily diary of police station, arrest shown by S.H.O. in daily diary appeared to be afterthought ‑‑‑Detenus were granted interim bail.
Judgment & Decree
In this habeas corpus petition the petitioner has alleged the illegal detention of her two sons Arsamd and Salah‑ud‑Din and her son‑in‑law Khalil Ahmad. On her request a Bailiff was deputed yesterday and he has brought them.
2. According to the report of the Bailiff, he raided Police Station Cantt. Shorkot at 2 a.m. today and found Salah‑ud‑Din detenu in the police lock‑up and two others detenus sleeping on a Charpai placed in the compound of the police station. He has further reported that he perused the daily diary register but there was no entry of their arrest and he. was shown an F.I.R., in which their names were not mentioned and for that reason he has brought them for production before this Court.
3. Muhammad Ramzan, S:H.O. P.S. Cantt. Shorkot states that on 12‑6‑1992 Noor Din, a co‑villager of the detenus, lodged a report, alleging the murder of his son Ghulam Nabi by some unknown persons and on his statement case F.I.R. No.61 was registered under section 302, P.P.C. According to him, Rana Ishrat Ali D.S.P./S.D.P.O. Circle Shorkot inspected the spot on 14‑6‑1992 at 5 p.m. and a number of persons from the ‑village appeared before him and they suspected the detenus for the murder of Ghulam Nabi on account of their sister Mst. Razia Sultana alias Guddo having illicit liaison with Ghulam Nabi (deceased). He submits that under the directions of the D.S.P. he associated the detenus with the investigation of this case on y yesterday when they were produced before him by Riaz Chairman and Chiragh Lumberdar when he was on patrol and he, after entering their arrest in the case diary, sent them to the police station but before he could reach the police station, the Bailiff raided and not finding any entry in the daily diary, has brought them here.
4. Since the arrest of the detenus is not mentioned in the daily diary of the police station, the arrest shown by the S.H.O. in the case diary appears to .A be an afterthought and the detenus are granted interim bail if they furnish their bail bonds in the sum of Rs.20,000 each with one ‑surety .each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Sessions Judge, Jhang.
5. Since the murder case has been registered and the police is to be given an opportunity to investigate it in order to find out the real culprits, the S.H.O. or the other Investigating Officer who is to handle this case, can re associate the detenus with the investigation of the case if something tangible comes on the record but before doing so they shall seek permission of the learned Sessions Judge, Jhang, in order to satisfy him that they are really required by them for investigation.
6. With these remarks, the habeas corpus petition is disposed of. H.B.T./A‑178/1 Order accordingly.