Muhammad Akram vs House Station Officer And Other
This petition was filed under Section 491 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, seeking the recovery and release of several individuals allegedly held in illegal custody at a brick-kiln by the respondent. Upon the court's order, a bailiff was deputed, and the alleged detainees were successfully recovered. While the respondent contended that the individuals were working at the brick-kiln pursuant to an advance payment arrangement, the detainees explicitly stated before the court that they were held against their will and expressed a desire to leave the respondent's premises. The court, without adjudicating upon the underlying contractual or financial disputes regarding the alleged advance payment, prioritized the liberty of the individuals. Holding that the detainees could not be compelled to remain at the brick-kiln against their wishes, the court ordered their immediate release. Furthermore, the court directed that the individuals be permitted to retrieve their personal belongings from the respondent's premises without interference. The petition was disposed of accordingly, ensuring the restoration of the detainees' freedom.
- Can a court order the release of individuals held at a brick-kiln if they express a desire to leave, regardless of alleged financial advances?
- Does the court have the authority under Section 491 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 to secure the release of persons claiming illegal detention?
- Section 491, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
IJAZ AHMAD CHAUDHRY, J.-Through this petition under section 491, Cr.P.C, petitioner seeks release of 33 mentioned in para No.1 of the petition for illegal custody of Rana Omer Draaz respondent No. 2.
2. A bailiff of this Court was deputed for the recovery of the above said detenue order dated 25.7.2003. All the detunes Iqbal s/o Bahawal, Aziz Bibi wife of Muhammad Akram, Sughra Bibi daughter of Mansabdar Nighat daughter of Haji have been recovered the above said four persons according to the report of the bailiff had left the place and on 25.7.2003 they had gone to their village.
3. All the detunes are present and they claim that they were illegally detained at brick-kiln by Rana Omer Draz respondent No. 2.
4. However, on the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No. 2 states that they had obtained Rs. 2,50,000/- as advance and only came at brickkiln on 22.5.2003.
5. Be that as it may be all the alleged detunes do not want to stay at brick-kiln of respondent No. 2, hence, they are set at liberty and they can take away their articles from the brick-kiln by tomorrow and respondent No.2 will not stop them from doing so. This petition is disposed of accordingly.