1999 PLP 3373 (MLD)
Mst. SHAMIM AKHTAR — Petitioner Versus S. H. O, POLICE STATION SADDAR, TOBA TEK SINGH
| Citation | 1999 PLP 3373 (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | Mst. SHAMIM AKHTAR — Petitioner Versus S. H. O, POLICE STATION SADDAR, TOBA TEK SINGH |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1999 PLP 3373 (MLD)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1999 PLP 3373 (MLD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1999 PLP 3373 (MLD) (Mst. SHAMIM AKHTAR — Petitioner Versus S. H. O, POLICE STATION SADDAR, TOBA TEK SINGH). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Muhammad Akram Javed for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 491
Contention of police was that detenu was a dominated accused in a case under S. 382, P.P.C. registered against him--Entry regarding arrest of detenu was not made in Roznamcha of police station concerned when Bailiff effected raid
Police file regarding arrest of detenu was also not shown to Bailiff on the pretext that same was not available at police station and was with Investigating Officer
Detention of detenu was held to be illegal and he was ordered to be set at liberty.
Judgment & Decree
On the Basis of an application moved by the petitioner, a bailiff of this Court was deputed to recover the alleged detenu Muhammad Arshad son of Muhammad Boota from the illegal detention of S.H.O. Police Station Saddar Toba Tex Singh.
2. As per report of the Bailiff, he visited the said police station and on inquiry, found that the alleged detenue had been detained over there for the last 1 H/20 days. On further inquiry, he was informed that the alleged detenue is a nominated accused in case vide F.I.R. No. 244 of 1997, dated 26-10-1997 under section 382, P.P.C. registered at Police Station Saddar Toba Tek Singh. He was further informed that the alleged detenue had been arrested on 11-11-1997 by Muhammad Siddique S.I/I.O. who had sent a Ruqqa to that effect. However, on checking the Roznamcha, he found that no such entry regarding the arrest of the alleged detenue had been incorporated in it The Bailiff inquired about the police file, which was not shown to him on the pretext that it was available with Muhammad Siddique S.I/I.O who was seized of the investigation at the relevant time.
3. Muhammad Arshad S.I./S.H.O. is present and states that the alleged detenu is a nominated accused in the F.I.R. referred above and he was arrested by Muhammad. Siddique S.I./I.O. on 11-11-1997 and was transmitted to the police station alongwith Ruqqa. He states that the said Ruqqa was received at the police station at 6.00 p.m. but due to rush of work, the Moharrir could no make entry in the Roznamcha regarding the arrest of the alleged detenu.
4. Be that as it may, it is fact that entry regarding the arrest of the alleged detenu was not made in the Roznamcha of the police station when the Bailiff of this Court effected raid at 8-45 p.m. on 11-11-1997. It is also fact that the police file regarding the arrest of the alleged detenu was also not shown to the Bailiff on the pretext that the same was not available at the police station anti was with Muhammad Siddique S.I./I.O.
5. Since the arrest of the alleged detenu had not been shown in the daily diary of the police station till 8-45 p.m. when Bailiff of this Court visited the police station for effecting recovery of the alleged detenu, so the stand o! Muhammad Arshad S.I./S.H.O. that the alleged detenu had been arrested by Muhammad Siddique S.I./I.O. on that date at 6.00 p.m. is not borne out from the record.
6. In view of the facts stated above, detention of the alleged detenu is held to be illegal and accordingly, he is ordered to be set at liberty.
7. This order, however, shall not debar the I. O. proceeding further in the matter in accordance with law.
8. With this observation, the petition stands disposed of.
9. The amount of security be returned to the petitioner.
10. Let a copy of this order alongwith the petition be sent to S.S.P. Toba Tek Singh for looking into grievance of the petitioner and taking necessary action against the delinquent official in accordance with law. H.B.T./S.244/L Order accordingly.