' This petition has been directed against the order, dated 16-1-2004, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Bahawalpur whereby the prayer of the petitioner that she be allowed to accompany Mst.
Faizan, mother of Fayyaz Ahmad, was turned down and she was sent back to Dar-ul-Aman with the observation that she may accompany her relative related to her within the prohibited degree.
This order was passed after recoding the statement of the petitioner wherein it was clearly stated that she did not want to accompany her parents.
2. Briefly, the relevant facts of the case are; that the petitioner was sent to Dar-ul-Aman by the order dated 15-4-2003 passed by Special Judicial Magistrate at her instance as she apprehended danger to her life at the hands of her parents. During her stay in Dar-ul-Aman she moved an application that she may be allowed to accompany Khadim Hussain co-accused in case F.I.R. No, 382 of 2003 registered at Police Station Yazman on 12-8-2003 for an offence under section 16 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979 at the instance of her father Ghulam Rasool. This application was dismissed on 9-8-2003 by the Magistrate after making few attempts to get out of the Dar-ul-Aman. The petitioner moved an application under section 491, Cr.P.C. On 10-1-2004 before the learned Sessions Judge, Bahawalpur wherein she sought her release from Dar-ul-Aman. This application was decided by the learned Sessions Judge vide order, dated 16-1- 2004 in the . Above-noted terms.
3. Statement of the petitioner-Mst. Naseem Mai has been recorded today, separately. She has stated that she was aged 30 years and she did not want to stay in Dar-ul-Aman. She further stated that she should be set free.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner is an adult citizen of Pakistan and cannot be detained in Darul-Aman as against her wishes. The learned A.A.-G has frankly conceded that the petitioner being sui juris had a right to lead a life of her own choice.
Conversely, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No,4, father of the petitioner, has vehemently opposed this application and has argued that the learned Sessions Judge passed the impugned order as the petitioner refused to accompany her parents and that the petitioner was likely to accompany her paramour after her release from Dar-ul-Aman and that the impugned order was passed from preventing the petitioner to lead an immoral life.
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length. Admittedly, the petitioner is sui juris. It is also undisputed that her consistent stand was that she did not want to accompany her parents as she apprehended a danger to her life at their hands. Now the question is that; can the petitioner be forced to stay in Dar-ul-Aman till she agrees to accompany any of her relatives related to her within the prohibited degree? According to Article 25 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1'973 all citizens were equal before law and entitled to equal protection of law and that there would be no discrimination on the basis of sex alone. Similarly, a perusal of Articles 9 and 15 of the Constitution reveals that .No citizen can be deprived of liberty and no restriction can be imposed on the freedom of movement of a citizen. In the case of Mst. Afshan Bibi v. State 1998 SCM R 6 this Court while granting bail to petitioner Mst. Afshan Bibi imposed a condition that she would only be released on furnishing bail bond by her father. Since she did not agree to accompany her father she was lodged in Dar-ul-Aman. The Honourable Supreme Court, while allowing the appeal of Mst. Afshan Bibi modified the bail granting order passed by this Court by removing the condition imposed and observing that the petitioner may be released on furnishing surety of her choice in the same amount as directed by the High Court. It cannot be presumed that the petitioner who is a lady of mature years would start leading an immoral life if set free. The learned Sessions Judge being aware of the legal status of the petitioner while passing the impugned order observed that the petitioner may be sent to Dar-ul-Aman, if she likes so. To say the least the impugned order is ambiguous in nature as at one hand the learned Sessions Judge has imposed a condition on the petitioner that she could only accompany the relative relating to her within the prohibited degree and on the other hand he ordered that she may be sent to Dar-ul- Aman if so likes. Obviously, in the circumstances she was never given a choice as she had filed the petition with prayer to be set free.
6. The upshot of the whole discussion is that I am of the firm opinion that no .Restriction on the movement of the petitioner could be imposed by the learned Sessions Judge. Thus, I allow this petition, set aside the impugned order of the learned Sessions Judge, Bahawalpur to the extent of the restriction imposed. The petitioner being sui juris citizen of Pakistan is set free. She may lead a life of her own choice.