Supreme Court of Pakistani Mrs. SAEEDA BIBI vs THE GOVERNMENT OF THE PUNJAB through Chief Secretary, Lahore and 4 others

ORDER

' MAMOON KAZI, J.---The grievance of the petitioner is that her husband, Jalal-ur-Rehman, is involved in a case registered under F.I.R. No, 65 of 1992 at Police Station Civil Lines, Quetta, under sections 302/324/147/148t149 and 120-B, P.P.C. The petitioner's husband belongs to Kalpar tribe and the tribes of the petitioner's husband and Nawab Akbar Bugti are at daggers drawn with each other since more than a decade. On account of increasing bitterness between the two tribes many persons belonging to Kalpar tribe had to leave Baloschistan out of fear for their lives.

2. At prdsent the petitioner's husband and his brother are lodged in jail in Sargodha in the Province of Punjab in connection with cases registered under F.I.Rs, Nos.168 of 1995 and 169 of 1995 under section .302/324/148/149, P.P.C. And section 13 of the Arms Ordinance, respectively. The two F.I.Rs, were registered at Police Station New Multan, District Multan, against the petitioner's husband and his brother. When the petitioner's husband and his brother were confined in judicial custody at Sargodha, a requisition was received for repatriation of the petitioner's husband to Balochistan in connection with the cases registered against him in the said Province as a warrant of his arrest was issued by the concerned Court in Balochistan.

3. The petitioner while apprehending danger for her husband's life, filed a Writ Petition No,746 of 1998 before the Lahore High Court, seeking directions for the respondent-authorities named in the petition to restrain them to move the petitioner's husband from the Province of Punjab to that of Balochistan. The petitioner apprehended that her husband with active connivance of the administration in Quetta may be subjected to torture or may be assassinated by showing such murder as resulting from an encounter with the police.

4. However, the learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court, who dealt with the said petition was not convinced and the petition was, therefore, dismissed.

5. Before this Court also, the same grounds have been urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner. It has been contended by the learned counsel that the respondents have violated the fundamental rights of the petitioner's husband by exposing him to danger to his life. It has been further argued by the learned counsel that the case pending before the Court at Sargodha should have been tried first before requisitioning his attendance at Quetta.

6. It may, however, be pointed out that notwithstanding the petitioner's concern for her husband.

Jalal-ur-Rehman, a criminal case has been registered against the latter in Quetta and in order to enforce his attendance before itself, the concerned Court is said to have issued a warrant for his arrest. Therefore, the question relating to the removal of the petitioner's husband from custody at Sargodha and his repatriation to Balochistan is to be governed by the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Section 82, Cr.P.C. Provides that a warrant of arrest may be executed at any place in Pakistan. Sections 83 to 86-A in Chapter VI in the Code of Criminal Procedure provide for a complete procedure where a warrant of arrest is to be executed outside the local limits of the jurisdiction of the Court issuing such warrant. There appears to be no controversy in regard to the fact that the process of arrest of the petitioner's husband under the circumstances, is to be regulated by an order of the Illaqa Magistrate at Sargodha. The learned counsel has not questioned the legality of such proceedings before this Court but his only contention has been that, unless the respondents are restrained from shifting the custody of the petitioner's husband from Sargodha to Quetta, he is likely to get killed, as pointed out earlier. The contention. However, does not appear to be tenable. If the action taken against the petitioner's husband falls within the parameters of law, no Court would like to interfere by restraining the concerned authorities from performing their legal obligation. If the petitioner apprehends any danger to her husband's life. She can seek the protection of the law enforcement agencies. No doubt, Article 9 of the Constitution guarantees security of person but if the respondents are acting within the parameters of law and are simply performing their legal obligation, they cannot be restrained by an order of the Court and that also upon mere apprehension of the petitioners. Consequently, in our view the learned Judge in the High Court did not commit any error while dismissing the writ petition filed by the petitioner.

7. In the result, the petition is dismissed.