MRS. SAJIDA DURRANI Versus MUHAMMAD AYUB Mrs. SAJIDA DURRANI , Khalil Ramday, A.-C. assisted by Rafi Siddiqui.,MUHAMMAD AYUB
ORDER
In this habeas corpus, this Court had issued notice to the S.H.0. Shalimar & also to Muhammad Yaqub Assistant Superintendent Jail, Lahore on 1st of June, 1988. On the call of this Court, Mr. Khalil Ramday, Advocate‑General., also entered appearance. Jail authorities apprised this Court that the detenu was involved in a case register against him vide F.I.R. No.266 dated 26‑12‑1983. Muhammad Ayub Sub‑Inspector P.S. Shalimar produced the F.I.R. register and stated that no F.I.R. bearing No.266 of 1983 was in existence, and the last F.I.R. for the year was bearing No.226. In course of the hearing of this case, this Court was further informed about the fact, that in F.I.R. bearing No.208 dated 14‑9‑1986 bail of the petitioner was cancelled on account of his absence from the trial Court. Later on, it transpired, that since the detenu was an under‑trial prisoner, and was not produced in the said Court, hence, on account of the absence of the detenu, the bail was cancelled.
2. To put an end to the misery of the detenu and his mother, I admitted the detenu to bail in the aforesaid case i.e., F.I.R. No.208, dated 14‑9‑1986.
3. In presence of the learned Advocate‑General, this Court was informed by the police official of the Police Station Shalimar, that no other case stands registered against the detenu. It was further brought to the notice of this Court that on account of rivalry and party faction, detenu, his mother and his brothers were involved in a murder case, in which the detenu and his family members were acquitted, but yet in another case registered under section 307, P.P.C., the detenu and his family members were discharged.
4. In compliance with the orders of this Court admitting the detenu to bail, the detenu was released from jail, but as soon as, he came out of the jail, he was taken into custody, hence Criminal Original No. 37 of 1988 was moved in which. I issued Notice to Muhammad Ayub Sub‑Inspector Police Station Shalimar, to show cause as to why he should not be committed for the contempt of this Court.
5. S.H.O. Police Station Shalimar alongwith Sub‑Inspector Muhammad Ayub have entered appearance and stated that the detenu was an absconder in a case registered against him vide F.I.R. No.187 dated 1‑7‑1987 registered at Police Station Shalimar under section 380 read with section 14 of the Enforcement of Hadd (Offences Against Property) Ordinance, 1979. It was also brought into the notice of this Court that Kalandra under section 55 read with section 110, Cr.P.C., has also been prepared against the detenu, because he was a dangerous person and was a threat to the peace. Therefore, on account of these two cases, he has been taken into custody. It was regrettable to note that the police officers in this case have abused the powers vesting in them. On 1‑6‑1988 a specific statement was made, that no other case stands registered against the detenu, and having come to know about the release of the detenu, keeping this Court in dark the S.H.O. prepared a Kalandra under section 110, Cr.P.C. It was strange to note that no Kalandra was prepared against the opposite side. In these circumstances, I direct the S.H.O. Police Station Shalimar and Sub‑Inspector Muhammad Ayub of the same police station to file their written reply in pursuance of the notices issued against them to show' cause as to why, they should not be committed for the contempt of this Court.
6. Adverting to the case of detenu, I am of the view that the case was registered against the detenu in July, 1987 when the chain of cases were being registered against him. It is stated that after the registration of the cases under sections 302 and 307, P.P.C. the case under section 380, P.P.C. was registered against the detenu for having committed the theft of a rifle.
7. The learned Advocate‑General has suggested that the detenu be asked to invoke the jurisdiction of the learned trial Court for the grant of bail. In my view, such course is not feasible and will add to the miseries of the detenu. Accordingly, I direct that the detenu shall be released on bail in case registered against him vide F.I.R. No.187, dated 1‑7‑1987 provided the detenu furnished bail bond in the sum of Rs.25,000 with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of Deputy Registrar (Judicial) of this Court.
8. Contemners S.H.O. Shalimar and Sub‑Inspector Muhammad Ayub shall file their written reply on 22nd of June, 1988.
S. A./S‑254/L Order accordingly.