ORDER-SHEET

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH, CIRCUIT COURT LARKANA  

Constt. Petition No. S-  950 of 2018.

Date of hearing

Order with signature of Judge

28.12.2018.

1.       For orders on office objections.

2.       For hearing of main case.

          Mr. Muhammad Afzal Jagirani, Advocate for petitioner.

          Mr. Munawar Ali Abbasi, Asstt. A.G.

~~~~~~~

          Through instant petition, the petitioner has approached this Court with following prayer(s):

(a)     To direct the respondents No.1 and 2 not to harass the petitioner at the behest of respondents No.4 to 8 and direct them to provide protection to the petitioner.

(b)     To direct the respondents No.6 to 8 to execute P.R bond before this Court for not taking law in their hands.

          Mr. Muhammad Afzal Jagirani, learned counsel for petitioner has contended that the private respondents in connivance of the police have registered FIR No.12/2018 under Section 382, 215 PPC at P.S Airport against petitioner; that the petitioner has obtained bail in aforesaid case, but even the police on instance of private respondents are causing harassment to the petitioner; that the aforesaid act of the police officials is highly uncalled for. He further contended that life and liberty of the petitioner and his family members is at stake at the hands of police, which needs to be protected by this Court.

          Conversely, learned A.A.G. refused the allegations of the petitioner and has placed on record the statements of respondents No.1, 2, 3, 7 and 8, whereby the allegations as leveled in the petition have been denied. He further contended that police has acted in accordance with law and no coercive action has been taken, except in accordance with law, for which they are empowered under the Code of Criminal Procedure.

          Mr. Ali Madad Arijo, Advocate files vakalatnama on behalf of private respondents. He submits that these respondents have never caused any sort of harassment to petitioner, nor they intend to do so in future.

          At this stage, I enquired from the police officials present in Court, as to whether petitioner is involved in other criminal cases; they have submitted that petitioner and his other family members are involved in all thirteen cases, as disclosed in the memo of statement of respondent No.1.

          Be that as it may, I am cognizant of the fact that the police is at liberty to take action against any culprit, who is involved in criminal cases and the same action can be taken against them in accordance with law. At this stage learned counsel for petitioner has invited my attention that the petitioner has been granted bail in the case, shown in the memo of petition.

          The police officials, who are present in Court, have categorically stated that they have neither caused any harassment to the petitioner nor they intend to do so in future, but they would act strictly in accordance with law. The statements seem to be fair; upon which learned counsel for the petitioner has agreed for disposal of the instant petition.

          In view of such statement of the police officials concurred by the learned Asstt: A.G.,  I am satisfied that the petition may be disposed of in view of the statements of the police officials present in Court.

          In the light of above facts and circumstances of the case, the instant petition is disposed of with directions to official respondents to act strictly in accordance with law. However, it made clear that, if the petitioner is not involved in any criminal case, he may not be caused undue harassment and if he is involved or indulged in any criminal activities, the police will be at liberty to take action in accordance with law.

                                                                JUDGE