Find a Lawyer

Writ Petition No. 1455 of 1982, decided on 21st December,1982.

‑‑‑Art. 199‑‑Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S.491‑‑Habeas corpus‑‑Accused detained in judicial lock‑up for his failure to repay loan of Agricultural Development Bank‑‑High Court suspended recovery of disputed amount on condition that accused would furnish bank guarantee in like amount but accused not furnishing same‑‑No case for issuance of direction in nature of Habeas Corpus under 5.491, Criminal Procedure Code, held, made out in circumstances‑‑Interference declined by High Court in exercise of discretionary constitutional jurisdiction.

Ch. M. Siddiq Safdar for Petitioner.

This is a petition under Article 9 of the Provincial Constitution Order, 1981 read with section 491, Cr.P.C. for the release of Hakim Ali presently confined in judicial lock up, Pakpattan in pursuance of the order of his detention issued by the Assistant Collector, IInd grade, respondent No. 2 for the recovery of loan allegedly obtained by the detenu from the Agricultural Development Bank Ltd., Pakpattan Branch. Mr. Abdul Ghafoor respondent No. 2 states that in compliance with the stay order, dated 1‑11‑1982 granted by this Court, he had released Hakim Ali, the defaulter and as such afforded him opportunity to furnish bank guarantee in the terms of the stay order. Since the alleged detenu has not furnished bank guarantee within time fixed by this Court, he has again detained him.

2. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and going through the record, I find that on 1‑11‑1982, following order was passed.

"The recovery of the disputed amount i.e. Rs.20,000 is suspended provided the petitioner furnishes bank guarantee in the sum of Rs.20,000 within one month to the satisfaction of the Manager, Agricultural Development Bank Ltd., Pakpattan Branch."

The learned counsel has frankly admitted that the petitioner had not furnished the bank guarantee as required 'by this Court Since the fault lies with the alleged detenu, I am not inclined to exercise the discretionary constitutional jurisdiction in his aid. As far relief under section 491, Cr.P.C., the learned counsel submits that the detention of Hakim Ali is illegal inasmuch as his crop valuing Rs.50,000 having been attached, his further detention for the recovery of loan of Rs.20,000 has become illegal. Furthermore, the notice of demand having not been given to Hakim Ali, his detention was not warranted by law.

As against this, respondent No. 2 has stated that the formalities of law were fully complied with. In this situation, I am convinced that of direction in the nature of habeas corpus, no case for the issuance under section 491, Cr.P.C., is made out.

3. For what has been stated above, this petition is dismissed in limine.

M. Y. H. /5232/L Petition dismissed.

Find a Lawyer Near You

Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.