NOOR MUHAMMAD vs DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, HYDERABAD SINDH and 2 others

1. ' SYED ABDUR REHMAN, J.--This is a petition under Article 199 of the Constitution whereby the detention under M.P.O. Of Bachoo s/o Noor Muhammad Gahelo has been challenged by the petitioner, who is the father of detunu Bachoo. The order is dated 26-5-1990 and has been passed for a period of thirty (30) days.

2. ' The detenu was taken from his village by the Police of Sekhat Police Station, District Hyderabad on 20-5-1990 and was first detained at the Police Station, and thereafter, lodged in Central Jail, Hyderabad. The above order of detention passed on 26-5-1990 by the District Magistrate, Hyderabad was served on him on 30-5-1990. The detention order is based on the following grounds:--

(1) That he is associate of notorious dacoits Photo Khaskheli, Hussain Panhwar, Anoo Khoso and other dacoit gangs whom he harbours, provides food, ammunition and conveyance.

(2) That he assists the dacoits in committing serious crimes and informs them about Police department.

(3) That he is involved in the following cases of Police Station Sekhat:--

(1) Case Crime No, 43/73 under section 216-A, P.P.C.

(2) Challaned under section 110, Cr.P.C. In year 1965.

(3) Challaned under section 110, Cr.P.C. In year 1974

(4) Challaned under section 14, SCC Act in year 1979.

(5) Challaned under section 78, M.L.O. In year 1982.

(6) Challaned under section 110, Cr.P.C. In year 1985.

(7) Challaned under section 3, M.P.O. In year 1987.

(4) That he has been indulging in anti-social activities prejudicial to public order and as such his remaining at large will be hazardous to the public peace and tranquillity.

3. So far as the first two grounds are concerned, these are allegations with regards to the detenu associating with notorious dacoits Photo Khaskheli, Hussain Panhwar, Anoo Khoso and other gangs of dacoits whom he harboured, provided ammunition and conveyance and assisted them in committing serious crimes and informed them about the Police department. These allegations do not specify as to when, where and how the alleged detenu had harboured these dacoits and provided food and ammunition to them, or had assisted the dacoits in committing serious crimes and had informed them about Police department. When we asked Mr. Muhammad Siddique Kharal, the learned A.A.-G. As to whether he had any meterial available with him in support of these allegations, he frankly conceded that there was no record to substantiate these allegations and as such the allegatons arc not only vague, but are also not supportable from any record.

4. Ground No,3 relates to the allegation that the detenu was involved in certain criminal cases. Mr. Nibhando Khan, Advocate for the petitioner has stated that these are very old cases and the detenu has already been acquitted in all these cases. The petitioner has filed an affidavit to that effect against which no counter-affidavit has been filed by the learned A.A.-G., nor any documents have been produced falsifying the above statement of facts contained in the affidavit. Even the security proceedings shown in the list of criminal cases are very old. These do not involve any conviction. Final order had to be passed in these cases for furnishing security for a limited period of time, which must have expired, even if any such order was passed. Apart from that Mr.Nibhando Khan has stated at the Bar that in none of these security proceedings the detenu was ever directed to furnish security.

5. It is, therefore, quite clear that grounds Nos.1 and 2 are vague, and indefinite, whereas ground No, 3 is insufficient and unsupported. Reliance was C placed in the Division Bench decision of this Court in the well-known case of Dr. Saleem Haider reported in 1988 P Cr. L J 486, where it was held following the decision in the cases of, inter alia, Hyderbux Jatoi (PLD 1969 SC 210), Ghulam Jilani (PLD 1967 SC 373), Abdul Baqi Baloch (PLD 1968 SC 313), Begum Shorish Kashmiri (PLD 1969 SC 14), and Muhammad Younus v.Province of Sindh (PLD 1973 Kar. 694) that the grounds of detention to be communicated to the detenu must contain particulars of facts which would enable him to make representation. If the grounds are not precise and lack particulars, this would constitute an omission to comply with the requirements of law, and therefore, cannot be considered as sufficient and valid in the eyes of law. It was further held in the case of Dr. Saleem Haider supra that if one of the grounds of detention is found to be unsustainable, the entire detention order would be vitiated since in that case it would be hard to determine which of the grounds had led to the passing of the detention order or whether the same was the result of all the grounds taken together. Even in subsequent D.B. Decisions of this Court reported in 1988 P Cr. J 1087 (Muhammad Abdullah v.

6. District Magistrate) and 1988 P Cr. L J 1451 (Tariq Khan Akbar v. Government of Sindh) the same view is taken.

7. So far as the fourth ground of detention is concerned, which alleges that the detent had been indulging in anti-social activities prejudicial to public order and as such his remaining at large will be hazardous to the public peace and tranquility, the same only gives reasons for his detention and is in fact not a ground of detention.

8. The learned A.A.-G. Has conceded that on the basis of material available with him he is unable to support the order of detention. The petitioner's counsel B also brought to our notice an unreported judgment in the case of detenu Menhoon son of Haroon (C.P No, 558 of 1990), who was detained by the District Magistrate along with the present petitioner and two others on the same day and in the same manner and on nearly the same grounds, in which the detention order was also quashed by a Division Bench of this Court consisting of the Hon'ble Chief Justice and one of us namely Mr.Justice Abdur Rahim Kazi.

9. ' We, therefore, quash this order of detention and allow this petition. The detent is ordered to be released forthwith, if he is not required in any other case.

10. ' These are the reasons of our short orders passed today.