INAYAT HUSSAIN Versus S.H.O. POLICE STATION UMAR KOT, DISTRICT RAJANPUR
This petition was filed under Section 491 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, challenging an order by the Sessions Judge, Rajanpur, which dismissed the petitioner's application for the recovery of his daughter-in-law, Mst. Nazira Bibi. The petitioner alleged that the detenue, who had married his son, was being illegally detained by her parents and uncle, who had previously registered a criminal case against the petitioner's son for abduction. The core legal question was whether the detenue was being held in illegal or improper custody warranting the court's intervention under its habeas corpus jurisdiction. The High Court held that because the detenue was living with her parents and uncle, and there was an active criminal case (F.I.R. No. 149) registered under the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979 regarding her alleged abduction, the custody could not be deemed illegal or improper. Consequently, the court dismissed the petition in limine, establishing that habeas corpus jurisdiction is not intended to interfere with custody where a pending criminal investigation regarding abduction exists.
- Can a petition under Section 491 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 be maintained when there is a pending criminal case regarding the abduction of the alleged detenue?
- Does the living of a woman with her parents and uncle constitute illegal or improper custody for the purposes of a habeas corpus petition?
- Is a habeas corpus petition a valid mechanism to hamper ongoing criminal proceedings?
- Section 491, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 11, Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979
ORDER
Inayat Hussain, the petitioner has brought the instant petition for setting aside the order, dated 14-4-2003 recorded by learned Sessions Judge, Rajanpur, whereby he has dismissed his application under section 491, Cr.P.C. for recovery of the alleged detenue Nazira Bibi and setting her at liberty after recording her statement.
2. Briefly the facts relevant for the disposal of this petition are that the petitioner had brought the aforesaid application under section 491, Cr.P.C. before the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Rajanpur for the recovery of said Mst. Nazira Bibi mentioning therein that she had entered into Nikah with his son Muhammad Yar on 17-4-2002 while her parents on 6-10-2002 had got registered a false case in respect of her abduction against him and others. On 2-3-2003, the local police had conducted raid and in the same arrested his said son and daughter-in-law. They kept his son in the judicial lock-up and handed over his daughter -in-law to her parents while there is danger to her life at their hands. He prayed for her recovery and recording her statement and then proceed further in the matter in accordance with law.
3. The learned Sessions Judge, vide his order, dated 14-4-2003 had dismissed his said application observing that it was simply to hamper the proceedings in the said criminal case.
4. His learned counsel has submitted that respondents Nos.2 to 4 illegally and improperly had detained the petitioner's daughter-in-law Mst. Nazira Bibi and hence she may be got recovered and produced before this Court and set at liberty after recording her statement.
5. I have carefully considered his submission and gone through the copies of record annexed to the petition.
6. Admittedly Mst. Nazira Bibi, the alleged detenue is presently living with respondents Nos.2 and 3, who are her uncle and father respectively, while respondent No.2 admittedly had got registered the B case F. I. R. No. 149, dated 6-10-2002 under section 11 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance No.VII of 1979 with Police Station Umar Kot against petitioner's said son and others regarding her abduction.
7. In these circumstances, I have not been persuaded that she is in custody of respondents Nos.2 and 3 illegally and improperly. The petition, therefore, is dismissed in limine.
N.H.Q./I-213/L Petition dismissed.