Lawyers Directory Listing
Chat with us free on WhatsApp — tell us your city and legal matter and our team connects you with the right lawyer. No form, no fee.
Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 794 of 1982, decided on 25th October, 1982.
‑‑ S. 491‑Haeabs corpus‑Contention that in spite of remand order detenu still in custody of C.I.A.‑Held, enquiry cannot be held in connection with such allegation‑Remand order, if abused or F. I. R. improperly recorded applicant may have some other remedy under law.
Moinuddin Ahmad for Petitioner.
Date of hearing. : 25th October, 1982.
‑This matter was put .up before us when we bad ordered the issuance of notice to the Advocate‑General with a direction to ascertain the factual position. On 20th October,. 1982 when this matter came up for hearing Mr. Saeed A. Shaikh, Advocate‑General, Sind stated that one of the alleged detenu, Habibur Rehman had been arrested by Bahadurabad Police in connection with F. I. R. 193/82 registered under section 382, P. P. C. However, Mr. Moinuddin for the petitioner has stated that the other alleged detenu Abdullah was still in the custody of the C. I. A. the case was adjourned for today. It is an admitted position that A. C. M. (East) has granted a remand order in respect of Habibur Rehman, according to Mr. Saeed A. Shaikh, up to 27th October, 1982 in connection with the aforesaid FA. R. However, the grievance of Mr. Moinuddin for the applicant is that in spite of the above remand order the above person, namely, Habibur Rehman is still in custody of C. I. A. In our view we cannot hold a enquiry in connection with the above allegation. The applicant may have some other remedy available under law in case remand order has been abused or F. I. R. has been improperly registered.
As regards the other detenu Mr. Moinuddin states that he has been released in the evening of 20th October, 1982. The above application has become infructuous. The applicant may agitate any point 'if he so wishes in a proper proceedings but the above point cannot be the subject matter of this application.
The application is, therefore, dismissed as having become infructuous.
M. A.K. Application dismissed.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer