2003 P Cr (PLP)
IMTIAZ HUSSAIN ‑‑‑Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD AZAM, S.H.O. DISTRICT OKARA and 3 others‑‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 2003 P Cr (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Tanvir Bashir Ansari, J |
| Parties | IMTIAZ HUSSAIN ‑‑‑Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD AZAM, S.H.O. DISTRICT OKARA and 3 others‑‑‑Respondents |
| Primary Law | Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2003 P Cr (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2003 P Cr (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Tanvir Bashir Ansari, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2003 P Cr (PLP) (IMTIAZ HUSSAIN ‑‑‑Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD AZAM, S.H.O. DISTRICT OKARA and 3 others‑‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Muhammad Iqbal Vehniwal for Petitioner.
- Date of hearing: 30th July, 2002.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑‑Art. 199(1)(b)(i)‑‑‑Constitutional petition‑‑‑Illegal confinement‑‑ Petitioner had alleged that accused was enlarged on bail, but was again arrested on the same day in pursuance of another F.I.R. got registered against the accused by same Police Officer‑‑‑Petitioner stated that accused was kept in illegal confinement from the day of his re‑arrest up to the grant of bail to him subsequently‑‑‑Petitioner had alleged that accused was falsely involved in the case by the police with mala fide intention ‑‑‑Challan in both the cases against accused had been submitted to the Court of competent jurisdiction and petitioner could seek his appropriate remedy there under the law‑‑‑Superintendent of Police, however, was directed to probe into the allegation levelled by the petitioner against the concerned Police Official and submit his report in the Court in that respect within specified period. Ch. Imitaz Elahi for A.‑G. for official Respondent.
Judgment & Decree
Muhammad Iqbal Vehniwal for Petitioner. Ch. Imitaz Elahi for A.‑G. for official Respondent. Date of hearing: 30th July, 2002. The explanation called for vide order dated 26‑7‑2002 has been submitted. The record has been examined. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, F.I.R. No.126 of 2002 was registered by respondent No.1 on 12‑6‑2002 wherein it has been specifically stated that the occurrence wherein the accused Nazir Ahmad was involved took place 1‑1/2 years before the registration of the F.I.R. It is also stated that the accused had admitted the occurrence and also had undertaken to return the alleged stolen property. It is also stated that another F.I.R. No.144 of 2002 was got registered on 28‑6‑2002 which was again, registered by the same S.H.O. In this F.I.R. the alleged occurrence relates to theft of a she‑donkey three months prior to the registration of the case. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that Nazir Ahmad was enlarged on bail on 28‑6‑2002 but was again arrested in pursuance of F.I.R. No.144 of 2002 on the same day. According to him, Nazir Ahmad was kept in illegal confinement from 28‑6‑2002 to 9‑7‑2002 when his arrest was shown in the daily diary on 9‑7‑2002. As a result of the order dated 9‑7‑2002 passed by the learned Sessions Judge Okara, bail was subsequently granted to Nazir Ahmad on 22‑7‑2002.
2. The challan in both the cases has been submitted to the Court of competent jurisdiction. The petitioner, if, so advised, may seek his appropriate remedy under the law. The learned counsel for the petitioner has alleged that respondent No.1/S.H.O. has obtained residential accommodation on rent from respondent No.2 and that it is on account of this consideration that respondent No.1 has falsely involved Nazir Ahmad in the aforesaid manner.
3. Without commenting upon the contention so raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner, let a copy of this order alongwith the copy of writ petition be sent to the S.S.P., Okara who shall probe into the matter and take such action as is warranted under the law and submit his report to this Court through D.R. (Judl.) within one month.
4. Disposed of in the above observation. H.B.T./I‑168/L Order accordingly.