BEGUM SAIDA DURANI Versus SH. SIRAJ DIN, JUDICIAL, MAGISTRATE SECTION 30, LAHORE CANTT Begum SAIDA DURANI , Khalil Ramday, A.-G. with Najam-uz-Zaman, A.A.-G.
ORDER
On my call, the learned Advocate‑General has entered appearance. The jail record and the other relevant record has been perused. In all the other cases, the detenu was allowed bail, but on the warrant, the jail authorities kept him under detention, and the said warrant indicated that the detenu was required in a case registered A against the detenu vide F.I.R. No.266, dated 26th December, 1983 Police Station Shalimar. F.I.R. register of the said police station has also been perused. There is no F.I.R. bearing No.266 dated 26‑12‑1983, because the last F.1.R. in the said register bears No. 226. In this view of the matter, it is obvious, that some error has crept into the warrants authorizing the detention of the detenu.
2. Mr. Najam‑uz‑Zaman, A.A.‑G. has drawn my attention to the fact, that another case registered vide F.I.R. No.208, dated 14th September, 1986 also stands registered against the detenu at Police Station Shalimar. This case was registered against the detenu under section 307, P.P.C. However, the detenu was released on bail, but subsequent thereto, on account of his absence, the bail of the detenu was cancelled. Causes of the cancellation of bail have also been examined, and according to the learned A.A.‑G., because the detenu was taken into custody in another case registered against him under section 302, P.P.C, therefore, the detenu could not appear in connection with the case registered against him vide F.I.R. No.208 dated 14‑9‑1986 at Police Station Shalimar. It is hence obvious, that the detenu had not absented himself deliberately. Accordingly, in the interest of justice, I would admit the detenu to bail in the aforesaid case registered against him vide F.I.R. No.208, dated 14‑9‑1986 Police Station Shalimar, provided he furnishes security in the sum of Rs.20,000 with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of Assistant Commissioner/Duty Magistrate Lahore Cantt.
3. It is further clarified, that after the bail bonds are furnished, by the detenu, he shall not be kept in illegal confinement on account of F.I.R. No.266 dated 26‑12‑1986, because the said F.I.R. does not exist at all. Jail authorities are directed to release the detenu as soon as bail bonds are furnished by him. With these observations, this petition stands disposed of.
S.A./S‑250/L Bail allowed.