HAJI MUHAMMAD RAMZAN Versus THE STATE
ORDER
1. This is an application under section 561‑A, Cr.P.C. whereby the proceeding pending under sections 107 and 117, Cr.P.C. before the Court of Assistant Commissioner and S.D.M. City Karachi has been challenged.
2. Briefly the case is that Mst. Maryam resident of Khadda filed an application at Police Station Baghdadi. She stated that on 20th October, 1984 her husband Umar was murdered by applicant Haji Muhammad Ramzan and such case is pending and accused has been released on bail. She apprehends danger from the applicant that he may harm her or her minor children. The report was submitted in the Court of A . C . M. who passed an order under section 112, Cr.P. C.
3. Mr. M.S. Khattak learned counsel appearing for the applicant contended that allegation is of general nature, vague, and no examples have been given in the report. It is also argued by' the learned counsel that applicant is not residing within the local limits of Magistrate, therefore, A . C . M . has not applied his mind properly before passing order under section 112, Cr.P.C. He has referred to the cases reported in P L D 1981 Kar. 50,PLD 1980 (?) 750 and 19$5 PCr.LJ 1013.
4. Mr. Suleman Ansari appearing for the State does not support this quashment application and stated that proceeding have properly been taken and no law has been violated.
5. In the present case report has been filed at Baghdadi Polio Station and Magistrate has only directed the petitioner to show cause why personal bond in the sum of Rs.5,000 should not be taken from him. The factual position has not been denied by Mr. Khattak. The husband of Mst. Maryam has been killed and case has 'yet to be decided but her apprehension is well founded that accused after release on bail may harm her or her children. It is the duty of the administration to give guarantee of security to every citizen and E proceedings under section 107, Cr.P.C. have rightly been taken. In the present case Mst. Maryam is widow having minor children and there is no harm if petitioner is directed to show cause. He can g before the A. C. M. and satisfy him that the notice is not warranted by law or execute bond. The stage is premature one and I do not find any wrong for initiating the proceeding which are of presentive nature when Magistrate has passed order under section 112, Cr.P.C. This quashment application having no merit is dismissed.
6. S.A./M‑366/K Application dismissed.