Permanent and valid law: Defence of Pakistan Ordinance XXX of 1971 to all intents and purposes is a permanent law as against similar previous laws which were of temporary nature. Rules (r.201) neither an absurdity nor ultra vires. (SC PLJ 1976 SC 371. Zahur Elahi. PLJ 1977 SC 147 = PLD 1977 SC 273.
Valid Law: Defence of Pakistan Ordinance XXX of 1971 held to be valid law (FB) PLD 1983 Kar. 132 Sharif-ud-Din Pirzada v. Federation of Pak. etc.
D.P.Rule 31 is not ultra vires; (FB) PLD 1973 Kar. 132 Sharif-ud-Din Pirzada.
Interim Relief: Where a Court has power to pass an order finally it has power to do so by way of an interim measure: D.P. Rule 32. (DB) PLD 1973 Kar. 383 Zafar Iqbal v. Province of Sindh etc.
(Note) Bail: Please see section 13-A as added by Ordinance XXIII of 1976 in Ordinance XXX of 1971 where jurisdiction to grant bail by High Court has been curtailed. (SC) PLJ 1977 SC 329 State v. Zahoor Elahi.
Bail can be allowed by the High Court under section 498, Cr.P.C. Powers of High Court under section 561-A, and under Article 199 of the Constitution also can be exercised to see the lack of bona fide or the misuse of power. Powers under sections 498 and 561-A are not ousted by section 13 (1)(b) of Ordinance XXX of 1971. Section 498, Cr.P.C. occupies the position of a supplementary provision which confers inter alia on High Court "independent or concurrent" jurisdiction to grant bail and in a proper case High Court has the jurisdiction to grant bail to a person accused of contravention of Defence of Pakistan Rule 1971, albeit the Special Tribunal seizing of the case has refused bail. (SC) PLJ 1976 SC 371 Zahur Ilahi. PLD 1977 SC 273.
Bail Rule 210: Bail application made to High Court under Rule 210. Held, Rule 210 does not contemplate that the Court must hold the accused innocent before admitting the petitioners to bail PLD 1974 Lah. 242. S. Muzaffar Hussain Shah etc.
Bail pre-arrest: Rule 210 does not take away the powers of superior Courts to grant bail before arrest in appropriate cases under Section 498, Cr.P.C. Bail before arrest confirmed. PLD 1975 Kar. 909 Maulana Musahib Ali PLJ 1975 Cr.C. (Kar.) 563.
Bail whether barred by R. 210: High Court does not consider Rule 210 as bar to grant of bail by it if otherwise according to law and merits of the case the petitioner is entitled to bail. PLD 1973 Lah. 747 Mian Tufail Mohammad.
Bail under D.P. Rules: Person detained under D.P. Rule 32, is not an accused person and therefore Section 496, 497 or 498, Cr.P.C. do not apply. (DB) PLD 1973 Kar. 383 Zafar Iqbal.
Bail-Clause (b) rule 210 attracted: Bail cannot be granted to such persons unless Court is satisfied that the petitioner is not guilty of offence charged under rule 31(1) read with Rules 198 and 42 (6)(t). Petition dismissed. PLD 1973 Lah. 643 Jan Mohammad etc. PLJ 1973 Lahore 29.
Bail-sickness and infirmity: Grounds of sickness and infirmity are not available for bail under Rule 210, as the Rule contemplates whether there are reasonable grounds to believe that the accused is guilty under Rules, bail can only be granted when reasonable grounds found to exist that the accused was not guilty under the Rules. Bail application refused. 1973 P.Cr.LJ 935 Begum Silvat Sher Ali.
Bail-consideration under Rule 210: Contention that bail can only be granted if the Court finds accused innocent is of no force. Court to consider entire circumstances and facts of the case and should grant bail when reasonable grounds exist for believing that the accused is not guilty. 1973 P.Cr. 965. Aziz Ullah K. Sheikh. 1974 P. Cr.LJ 153 Samin Khan. 1974 P Cr. LJ 559 PLJ 1973 Kar. 101.
Bail-Rule 210 no bar: High Court can grant bail despite bar contained under Rule 210. 1974 P Cr.LJ 559 Kadir Bakhsh 1975 P Cr. LJ 189 Rukan-ud-Din.
Bail speech-inciting public against Government: Accused maligning Government as Government of infidals, having seized power by cheating people, giving un-Islamic Constitution, and instigating people to take steps to separate their province like Bangladesh. Offence fell under Rules 42 and 49. Bail refused. 1975 P Cr.LJ 189 Rukan-ud-Din PLJ 1975 Cr.C. (Kar.) 469.
Bail speech objectionable: Speech containing allegations of corruption against Government and also making allegations against Prime Minister and Governor. Intention of treason attributed to accused has to be considered in the background of changing political considerations. Bail allowed. 1975 P Cr.LJ 642 Maulana Jan Mohammad Abbasi. PLJ 1975 Cr.C. (Kar.) 382.
Bail Rules 210 and 49 & 42 (6) Clauses (a), (b) & (e). Conjectures about intention of accused not enough to refuse bail: Recovery of revolver, helmet and uncertain secret information do not make the bar under Rule 210 operative. Bail allowed in criminal miscellaneous bail application moved under Sections 497, 498 and 561-A, Cr.P.C. and Rule 210, DPR, 1975 P. Cr.LJ 407 Kh. Mohammad Safdar etc.
Bail-Sections 498 & 561-A, Cr.P.C. not applicable: High Court cannot grant bail when cognizance of the matter taken by a properly constituted tribunal under the DPR. PLJ 1973 Kar. 228 Illahi Bakhsh Soomro. PLD 1973 Kar. 674 = PLD 1974 Kar. 29 Mohammad Ismail.
Detention under Rule 42 and accused in custody for 3 « months; DP Rule 210 and 42 read with Maintenance of Public Order Ordinance (XXXI of 1960) Section 16-A, Accused in custody for 3« months without progress in trial. Accused 19 years old, B.A. Student to appear in annual examination after a month. Prosecution not able to show that the accused would repeat offence if enlarged on bail. Bail granted under Section 498, Cr.P.C. PLJ 1975 Cr.C. (Kar.) 386 Masood Ghaus.
Bail-Trial not proceeded for 4 months and detenu in custody under Rule 42 for exhorting haris to make sacrifices to get their rights. Bail allowed under Sections 497-498, Cr.P.C., PLJ 1976 Kar. 12 Abdul Aziz.
Bail-Mala fide action of Police: Allegations found false and fantastic. Bail allowed under Sections 497, 498, Cr.P.C. and Rule 210 detention under rule 49. 1976 P Cr.LJ 533 Zaheer Ahmad etc.
Satisfied in Rule 32 means state of mind bordering on conviction. (DB) PLD 1974 Lah. 153 Mrs. Habiba Jilani. v. Pakistan.
Conclusions by detaining authority: High Court cannot sit in appeal on conclusion arrived at by detaining authority and inferences drawn by it from past conduct of detenu. (DB) 1973 P Cr.LJ 482 Begum Agha Abdul Karim Shorish.
Already under detention: Preventive detention under Rule 32 (b) can be ordered while a person is already under arrest. (DB) 1973 P Cr.LJ 482 Begum Agha Abdul Karim v. S.S.P. Lahore, etc.
Show-cause notice DP Rule 31, read with Central Government Order SRO No. 631 (1) 71 dated 23-12-1971, is not necessary. (FB) PLD 1973 Kar. 132 S. Sharif-ud-Din Pirzada.
Newspaper publication prohibited under Rule 53 (1) (a), (e): Further publication of the issue containing prejudicial material can be prohibited but publication of newspaper itself cannot be prohibited irrespective of fact whether any of its subsequent issues contains prejudicial material or not. PLD 1976 Lah. 197 Shaukat Hussain v. Government of Punjab.
Notification in official Gazette is not necessary to make the "order" effective. (FB) PLD 1973 Kar. 132. S. Sharif-ud-Din Pirzada.
Detaining authority: Only the Central Government or the Provincial Government i.e., the President or the Governor can order detention under DP Rule 32 (1) (b) and not the Deputy Secretary (Political) Interior Division with approval of Minister for Interior. Held, such order passed without lawful authority, Detenu set free in habeas corpus petition under Article 201 (2)(b) of Interim Constitution read with Section 491, Cr.P.C. (DB) 1973 P Cr.LJ 482 Begum Agha Abdul Karim.
Preventive detention under Rule 32 (d)(f) & 213-Vague Statement of facts. Order based on vague statement of facts and giving no indication as to nature of acts done by detenu and whether detenu was ever apprehended in acts forming basis for such order. Order declared to be unlawful. (DB) 1976 P Cr.LJ 634 Fazal Elahi v. Province of Sindh.
Preventive detention under Rules 32-Considerations: Grounds of detention mentioned in order must satisfy conditions. (1) Detention must be based on tangible material. (2) it must be relatable to grounds mentioned in the order (3). Honest application of mind to the material available for detention. Writ Petition dismissed, as smuggling on large scale may affect peaceful conditions in Pakistan. PLJ 1974 Lah. 213 Mian Ejaz Ahmad. v. Punjab Government.
Preventive Detention under Rule 208: Suspicion should be reasonable that the detenu has acted, is acting or is about to act in a manner prejudicial to security interest or defence of Pakistan. PLD 1976 Lah. 622. S. Zafar Abbas.
Preventive detention: Under Rule 32, Government can detain a person to prevent him from acting in a manner prejudicial to defence of Pakistan conduct of military operations, prosecution of war, security, public safety or maintenance of peaceful conditions in the country. (DB) PLD 1973 Kar. 241 Chander Bhan. v. Government of Sindh etc.
Past conduct and Rule 208 DPR: Past conduct of a person cannot be a ground for action under rule 208. The suspicion regarding detenu "having acted or acting or being about to act in manner prejudicial to the security etc. of Pakistan" there must be proximity of time and usual nexus between the activity complained of and threat to public safety. PLJ 1977 Lah. 224. Zafar Abbas v. D.M. etc.
Preventive detention vague grounds Rules 32 & 213: Grounds of detention indefinite and vague not specifying disparaging remarks made against Prime Minister and "other public servants" Other Public Servants not specified. Grounds being vague and indefinite order of detention held without lawful authority. (DB) PLD 1976 Lah. 773 Ghulam Ahamd. v. Punjab etc.
Grounds not communicated within 15 days of detention, held provisions of Article 10(5) of the Constitution not complied with. Detention order held to be unlawful and set aside. (DB) PLD 1976 Lah. 773 Ghulam Ahmed. v. Punjab Province etc.
Grounds of detention not supplied as yet or the period prescribed for supply of grounds not elapsed as yet is no bar to remedy under Article 199 of the Constitution. PLD 1976 Lah. 622 S. Zaffar Abbas etc. v. D.M., Jhang etc.
Grounds bad. Person cannot be proceeded under Rule 208 for an offence which is being tried in a Court of law. Past bad conduct also cannot be ground unless such conduct combined with other material shows that it presents an imminent threat to public safety. PLD 1976 Lah. 622 S. Zaffar Abbas.
Grounds of detention: No provision for supply of grounds exists in Rule 32. Adequacy or sufficiency of grounds cannot be challenged. However, if one ground out of several grounds found invalid the whole detention order becomes invalid. (DB) PLD 1973 Kar. 241 Chandar Bhan.
Grounds vague: Allegations that the detenu associated with leftist leaders, instructed students in making explosives, suspected of guiding communist activities, had contacts with Deputy, High Commission India and organised guerilla warfare in the country. Held, allegations, vague indefinite and completely lacked particulars, detention illegal. (DB) PLD 1973 Kar. 421 Khadija Bhabha. v. Province of Sindh etc. PLJ 1973 Kar. 7.
Preventive detention order under Rule 32 cannot be passed merely for purpose of enabling investigation of offences already allegedly committed. PLD 1973 Lah. 762, Malik Sohrab Khan PLJ 1973 Lah. 99.
Travelling abroad: Restrictions on travelling abroad under Rule 31(1), D.P.R. is curtailment of liberty granted by the Constitution Adequate reasons not given by Government, order set aside. PLD 1975 Lah. 499 Ch. Zahoor Illahi. v. Secretary, Government of Pakistan.
Movement restriction order: Order restricting movements of a person amounts to detention of that person. (DB) PLD 1975 Lah. 65. Maj.-Gen. Ghulam Jilani. v. Federal Government of Pakistan.
Movement restricted to residence: Order under rule 32(1)(b) restricting movements of a person to his residence, held ultra vires. (DB) PLD 1974 Lah. 7 Begum Nazir Abdul Hamid. v. Pakistan PLJ 1974 Lah. 36.
Movements restricted under Rule 32; High Court has jurisdiction under Article 201 of the Constitution to examine whether order of Government, restricting movements of a person to prevent him from acting in a manner prejudicial to the security and interest of Pakistan had been passed with or without lawful authority. PLD 1973 Lah. 647 S.U. Durrani. v. Federal Govt. of Pakistan.
Preventive Detention: Mutilated record of speech: Rules 32 and 213. No satisfaction for detention can be based on a mutilated record of speech. Detenu released on Writ Petition under Article 199 (a)(b) of Constitution PLD 1976 Lah. 695 Shah Ahmed Noorani. v. Government of Punjab.
Speech inflammatory. High Court to see full speech to see its affects on public. Isolated words and sentences not enough. Speech attracting provisions of Rule 32 (1) (b) Habeas Corpus Writ Petition dismissed. (DB) PLJ 1974 Pesh. 21 Mohammad Ghafoor v. Government of N.W.F.P.
Speech promoting hatred and enmity. Those who represented the Non-Sindhis were nor qualified to do so and that he himself was the sole qualified person. "Speech held could not be said to promote feelings of enmity and hatred between two classes as envisaged by Clause (g) of Rule 42. Also "Rast Qadam" "ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ" does not necessarily mean an invitation to violence. 1974P.Cr.LJ 153 Samin Khan v. State.
Speech must be reproduced as a whole, it cannot be considered piecemeal for action under rules 32 and 213. PLJ 1976 Lh. 715 Shah Ahmed Noorani v. Government of Punjab etc.
Material placed before detaining authority different from actual speeches delivered by detenu. Held, the detaining authority acted without jurisdiction. PLD 1976 Lah. 695 Shah Ahmed Noorani v. Government of Punjab.
D.P.R. 1971, Speech by accused continuing sweeping allegations of Corruption against Government. Intention of treason attributed to accused held, has to be considered against changing political considerations. 1975 P.Cr.LJ 642 Jan Mohammad.
Writ petition against detention under D.P.R. (Rule 208) can competently be filed prior to supply of grounds of detention within the prescribed period of 15 days. PLJ 1977 Lah. 224, Zaffar Abbas v. D.M., etc.
Detention of Pakistan National under Rule 39 is violation of Article 10(4) of the Constitution and order set aside under section 491, Cr.P.C. PLJ 1974 Cr. C. (Lah.) 11. Bakhtawar. 1976 P.Cr.LJ 393.
Detention of Pakistan indefinite period without reference to Review Board contravenes, Fundamental right No. 10. Detention held unlawful. PLJ 1974 Peshawar 24 Mohabbat Shah. v. Government of N.W.F.P.
Detention illegal: Previous illegal order of detention extended by fresh order. Detention, held, illegal. (DB) PLD 1974 Lah. 7 Begum Nazir Abdul Hamid. PLJ 1974 Lah. 36.
Habeas Corpus Petition under Article 201 of the Interim Constitution moved. Detention order under Rule 32 only a continuation of an earlier illegal order. Held, detention without lawful authority. PLD 1973 Lah.762 Malik Sohrab Khan. v. Federal Government of Pakistan PLJ 1973 Lah. 99.
Interview with detenu: Detaining officer is bound to allow interview with the detenu. (DB) PLJ 1973 Kar. 7 Khadija Bhabha v. Province of Sindh PLD 1973 Kar. 421.
Mere registration of case under rule 49 of D.P.R. does not oust the jurisdiction of the High Court. The Court has to see whether the rule is correctly applied to the facts of the case. PLD 1977 Lah. 1017 Parveen Malik.