1982 P Cr (PLP)

Munawwar Malik for Respondents. Sattar Shaikh, A. A.‑G. for the State. Date of hearing : 28th April, 1982. Rule nisi issued to the Police has been returned unserved with‑-- the endorsement, that the detenu is not traceable within their jurisdiction, at the given address.

2. Learned counsel for respondents Nos. 1 and 2 has pointed out that custody of ‑the detenu was handed over to respondent No. 1, vide order dated 18th February, 1982 of the Additional City Magistrate, Nawabshah against which order, no Revision has been filed and the respondent No. 1 has executed a bond of Rs. 50,000 in this connection. In view of this, learned counsel submitted, that the grievance, if any, of the applicant as mentioned in Para. 4 of the above Petition is against the order dated 18th February. 1982 of the Additional City Magistrate, Nawabshah; but against the said order, the applicant has taken no steps for getting the said order set aside. Learned counsel further submitted, that no doubts the custody of the detenu was handed over to respondent No. 1, but she being major, after she was brought to the house of the respondent No. 1, she has left that house voluntarily and the present whereabouts of the detenue are not known to respondent No. 1 as well as respondent No.

2. As far as the surety bond is concerned, learned counsel submitted, that it is for the Additional City Magistrate, Nawabshah to take steps against the respondents, where the respondent will give his explanation and reply as and when any show‑cause notice is issued to the respondent No. 1, in respect of said surety bond.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant on the other hand submitted, that the order dated‑18th February, 1982 of the learned Additional City Magistrate, Nawabshah was against the wishes of the detenu and as such it is not correct and legal. He as it may be, since the record and proceedings of the Additional City Magistrate, Nawabshah in connection with the case in question are not before me and since this is not a Revision against the said order, I would not like to go into the merits of the said order. The applicant's remedy, if any, will be not under section 491, Cr. P.' C. in this connection. Learned Additional Advocate‑General appearing on behalf of the State, keeping in view the above facts stated, that the above Petition is not maintainable, as applicant by this Petition wants to challenge the order dated 18th February, 1982 of the Additional City Magistrate, Nawabshah.

5. I have taken into consideration the above submissions made by the learned counsel before me and have gone through the order dated 18th February, 1982 of the Additional City Magistrate‑, Nawabshah as well a through Para. 4 of the above Petition. In my opinion, as the custody of the detenu was legally handed over to respondent No. 1 by the Competen Court, the above Petition is not maintainable, unless the order dated 18th February, 1982 of the learned Additional City Magistrate, Nawabshah is set aside by Competent Appellate Court and/or. Revisional Court. Further detenu is not in, custody of respondents as alleged by them, which is further established by endorsement on rule nisi by Police.

6. In view of this, I see no merits in the above Petition, which is dismissed. Petition dismissed.