2007 PLP 383 (YLR)
RANI BIBI — Petitioner Versus NOOR KHAN and 6 others — Respondents
| Citation | 2007 PLP 383 (YLR) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Akhtar Shabbir, J |
| Parties | RANI BIBI — Petitioner Versus NOOR KHAN and 6 others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2007 PLP 383 (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 2007 PLP 383 (YLR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Muhammad Akhtar Shabbir, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2007 PLP 383 (YLR) (RANI BIBI — Petitioner Versus NOOR KHAN and 6 others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Syed Ali Raza Gillani for Petitioner.
- Malik Muhammad Imtiaz Mahl for Respondents Nos.1 to 6.
- 3. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondents Nos.1 to 6 has vehemently opposed the report of the bailiff contending that the bricks kiln of the respondents was not in a working condition for the last about 20 days. It is a concocted story of the petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 491
Petition for recovery of detenues from the alleged illegal and improper custody of respondents
When Bailiff raided at the bricks kiln of respondents, two out of three houses were locked from outside and on the identification of petitioner, he had recovered alleged detenues
If detenues did not want to work at the bricks kiln of respondents, then no one could force to serve against their will as they had the right to move freely and the bonded labour was prohibited
Detenues were set at liberty to go wherever they liked. Darshan Masih v. The State PLD 1990 SC 513 ref. Muhammad Arif Bhindar, Addl. A.-G.
Judgment & Decree
MUHAMMAD AKHTAR SHABBIR, J.
This habeas petition has been filed by the petitioner for the recovery of detenues mentioned in the head-note of the petition, from the alleged illegal and improper custody of respondents Nos.1 to 6.
2. In compliance with the order of this Court dated 23-5-2006, the bailiff with the police assistance has raided at the bricks kiln of respondents Nos.1 to
6. Two out of three quarters were locked from outside and on the identification of the petitioner, he has recovered the alleged detenues. In the meanwhile, a person namely Nazir Masih came there. On asking of the bailiff, he told that he is Chokidar of the bricks kiln and owners of the bricks kiln were not available there. On query, he denied the blocking of the quarters. Further stated that the bricks kiln is not in a working condition. The owners of the bricks kiln used to visit the same off and on.
3. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondents Nos.1 to 6 has vehemently opposed the report of the bailiff contending that the bricks kiln of the respondents was not in a working condition for the last about 20 days. It is a concocted story of the petitioner.
4. Be that as it may, if the detenues do not want to work at the bricks kiln of respondents Nos.1 to 6, then no one can force them to serve against their will as they have the right to move freely and the bonded Labour is prohibited in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Darshan Masih v. The State (PLD 1990 SC 513). Therefore, the detenues are set at liberty to go wherever they like. The, security amount already deposited by the petitioner shall be refunded to the petitioner. H.B.T./R-40/L Petition allowed.