' Pursuant to the order of this Court, dated 7-5-2004 the bailiff of this Court raided Police Station Bhikkhi, District Sheikhupura. According to the report of the bailiff he arrived at the police station at 5-00 p.m. On 7-5-2004 for recovery of the alleged detenus namely Ghulam Raza and Ghulam Tariq sons of Abid Ali and found both the detenus locked up in the police lock-up within the precincts of the said police station. Both the detenus stated that they had been brought to the police station on Tuesday, the 4th of May, 2004 and were being detained there eversince. Muhammad Safdar, S.- I./S.H.O. Who was present at the police station stated that the alleged detenus had been arrested by Faisal Abbas, S.-I. That day i.e. 7-5-2004 in F.I.R. No.86, dated 5-5-2004 for offence under section 392, P.P.C. Registered at Police Station Bhikkhi. However, the S.H.O. Admitted that the detenus had not been named in the said F.I.R. And claimed that their arrest had been shown in Rappat No.8, dated 7-5-2004 at 10-40 a.m. The bailiff checked the relevant Register and found the Rappat related to the arrest of Muti-ul-Hassan son of Niaz Ali and Ghulam Murtaza son of Ghulam Abid and not against the present detenus as claimed by the S.H.O. According to the bailiff confronted with this situation the S.H.O. Stated that the record about the custody of the detenus was available with Faisal Abbas, S.-I. Who was not present at the police station. S.H.O. Further admitted that the alleged detenus had not been produced before any Court of competent jurisdiction. When the bailiff of the Court tried to take the detenus into custody in compliance with the order of this Court, the S.H.O. Refused to hand over the custody of the detenus, whereupon notice and order of this Court was handed over to him so that the detenus could be produced in the Court today.
2. Ch. Ghulam Murtaza Khan has appeared on behalf of the complainant of F.I.R. No.186, dated 5-5- 2004 and submitted that in fact the detenus were accused in the said F.I.R. And had been duly pointed out by the complainant through a supplementary statement purported to have been recorded on 7-5-2004. Petitioner to bail provided he furnishes bail bond in the sum of Rs.5,000 each with one surety each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court. They are in handcuffs. Their handcuffs shall be moved immediately.
3. I have examined the record with the assistance of the learned Additional Advocate-General.
There is no mention of the name of the detenus in the record. Even Rappat No.8 which ex facie appears to have been interpolated to some extent, does not contain their names. The S.H.O. Has shown disregard to the order of this Court by refusing to hand over the detenus to the bailiff of this Court. His conduct prima facie is contumacious and constitutes an affront to the authority of this Court. He thus, prima facie appears to be guilty of the contempt of this Court.
4. Let a notice be issued to the said S.H.O. To show cause as to why he may not be proceeded against for committing contempt of Court. A notice shall also be issued to Faisal Abbas, S.-I. For prima facie rigging the record of the police station so as to show the arrest of the detenus. The office shall open a separate file for the purpose of contempt proceedings and the learned Additional Advocate-General shall appear and assist the Court on 17-5-2004.
5. The detenus who hav'e been produced are stated to have been on physical remand granted by learned Judicial Magistrate, in exercise of my powers under section 497, Cr.P.C. I, while converting this petition into a bail application admit the University-Mere 'vague, ambiguous and cloudy allegations could not be allowed to challenge correctness of marking---Candidate, in the present case having availed of a remedy of re-marking of ,disputed answer book and having failed in that effort, could not be allowed again to get re-evaluations of answer book---Vague, unclear and unspecified allegations could not be considered a proof of a particular allegation---No specific and particular allegation of incorrect marking had been asserted by candidate with name of examiner in the petition---No specific and particular event had been pointed out by petitioner which would call interference into the administration and management of the affairs of University relating to conduct of examination---Case being not fit where High Court should issue directions for reevaluation of paper of candidate, High Court declined interference under its constitutional jurisdiction-Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.199.
6. This petition stands disposed of while the contemnor respondents shall appear in this Court on 17-5-2004.