PCRLJ 2006

2006 P Cr (PLP)

HAMEEDULLAH QURESHI — Petitioner Versus A.P.A. BARA, KHYBER HOUSE, PESHAWAR CANTT. and 2 others — Respondents

Jurisdiction / Court
Peshawar
Decided Date
2005-October-12
Honorable Judges
N/A
Case Reference Summary (AEO Optimized)
Citation 2006 P Cr (PLP)
Forum / Court Peshawar
Bench Members N/A
Parties HAMEEDULLAH QURESHI — Petitioner Versus A.P.A. BARA, KHYBER HOUSE, PESHAWAR CANTT. and 2 others — Respondents
Primary Law Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)
💡 Quick Legal QA & Summary / سوال و جواب خلاصہ
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2006 P Cr (PLP)?

This judgment primarily cites: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.

Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2006 P Cr (PLP)?

The case was heard and decided by the Peshawar bench comprising: N/A.

Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?

Cite this legal precedent as: 2006 P Cr (PLP) (HAMEEDULLAH QURESHI — Petitioner Versus A.P.A. BARA, KHYBER HOUSE, PESHAWAR CANTT. and 2 others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.

Laws Cited

Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)

Representation

  • Abdul Latif Afridi for Petitioner.
  • Liaqat Ali Addl. A.-G. and Salahuddin Khan, D.A.-G. for Respondents.
  • 2. It has been brought on record that Dr. Khushal was admitted to Central Jail, Peshawar on 28-6-2005, and was taken out therefrom on 5-7-2005, and was entrusted to the political authorities. The learned Advocate-General was given notice and a notice was also given to respondent No.3 through the leaned Deputy Attorney-General. We heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Additional Advocate-General and the learned Deputy Attorney-General, and we perused the available record.
  • 3. The learned Deputy Attorney-General stated at the bar that Dr. Khushal son of Hameedullah Qureshi was not in the custody of anybody, organization or authority under the Secretary to Government of Pakistan Interior Division. The learned Additional Advocate-General, however, showed us certain confidential record which mentioned that Dr. Khushal son of Hameedullah Qureshi was alive, safe and was in the custody of a body established by law and was dealt with in accordance with law and not otherwise.

Headnotes / Summary

S. 491

Frontier Crimes Regulation, 1901, S.40

Habeas Corpus petition

Alleged detenu, who was convicted and sentenced under 5.40 of Frontier Crimes Regulation, 1901, was alive and was in safe custody of a body established under law which was responsible for matters relating to security of Pakistan

Held, in the interest of security of State and also for safety of detenu, it was not necessary to order that alleged detenu be produced before the Court.

Judgment & Decree

SALIM KHAN, J.

Hameedullah Qureshi has instituted the present habeas corpus petition against the Assistant Political Agent, Bara, Secretary to Government of N.-W.F.P. Home and Tribal Affairs Department, as well as Government of Pakistan, through Secretary Interior Division, Islamabad. It was alleged by the petitioner that Dr. Khushal was his son who has M.D. Degree and was living with the petitioner in Tehkal Bala of District Peshawar, that he was picked up from the settled area, but was handed over to A.P.A., Bara, who convicted and sentenced him under section 40 of the Frontier Crimes A Regulation, 1901 on 28-6-2005 that he was summoned again from jail on 5-7-2005, but after that date, the whereabouts of Dr. Khushal are not known.

2. It has been brought on record that Dr. Khushal was admitted to Central Jail, Peshawar on 28-6-2005, and was taken out therefrom on 5-7-2005, and was entrusted to the political authorities. The learned Advocate-General was given notice and a notice was also given to respondent No.3 through the leaned Deputy Attorney-General. We heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Additional Advocate-General and the learned Deputy Attorney-General, and we perused the available record.

3. The learned Deputy Attorney-General stated at the bar that Dr. Khushal son of Hameedullah Qureshi was not in the custody of anybody, organization or authority under the Secretary to Government of Pakistan Interior Division. The learned Additional Advocate-General, however, showed us certain confidential record which mentioned that Dr. Khushal son of Hameedullah Qureshi was alive, safe and was in the custody of a body established by law and was dealt with in accordance with law and not otherwise.

4. In the circumstances, we are satisfied that Dr. Khushal is alive and is in safe custody of a body established under the law, which is responsible for the matters relating to the security of Pakistan. In the interest of security of the State and also for the safety of the detenu, we do not deem it necessary at this stage to order that body to produce him before us. Resultantly, the petition in hand is dismissed. H.B.T./550/P?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Petition dismissed.