The petitioner in these proceedings in contempt of Court was-involved in a criminal case registered at Police Station, Kallar Saydan for offences under sections 365 and 366, read with section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code. He applied for bail before arrest in this. Court. His application was fixed before me on 17-12-1976. . On that day I issued, notice to the State and allowed interim bail to him. Ultimately, on 6-7-1977 on the statement of the girl who was stated to have been abducted that she had herself run away with her alleged abductor I confirmed the interim bail.
2. At the relevant time the respondents were posted at Police Station Kallar Saydan. Despite the fact that the petitioner was on bail the respondents arrested him on 22-4-1977 from his house. On 25-4-1977 on the written statement of respondent No. 1 a case under sections 353, 33 3 and 324 read with section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code was registered against the petitioner and his brother for resisting arrest. Consequently, the petitioner had to suffer detention for almost one month. Shortly after his release, on 22-61977 he moved the present application for taking action against the respondents for arresting him even though he was on interim bail under an order of this Court.
3. To begin with the respondents denied that they had committed any contempt of Court. They submitted a joint written statement. In brief their case was that the petitioner was wanted by them in a case registered under sections 365 and 366, read with section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code.
He was avoiding to appear during the course of investigations. On the relevant day he and his brothers were going to Kallar Saydan town. On the way they met the respondents. When the respondents asked them to join the investigations they, attacked the former with dandas. As a result respondent No. 3 received some injuries. Nevertheless, they were overpowered by the respondents. During search of the petitioner a copy of the bail order was found on his person. It was then for the first time that they learnt that the petitioner had been allowed interim bail by this Court. However, as by this time he and his brother had by attacking the respondents committed offences under sections 353 and 333 of the Pakistan Penal Code they were placed under arrest.
4. The petitioner challenged the assertion of the respondents that they were unaware of the order of interim bail till about the time when the offence under sections 353 and 333 was allegedly committed by him and his brother. On the contrary, he averred the respondents were fully aware of the order of this Court long before that day. He offered to lead evidence to substantiate his assertion.
5. On 13-2-1978 the respondents withdrew the defence earlier taken by them. On that day by a statement made through their counsel they admitted all the allegations made by the petitioner and tendered an unqualified apology. They threw themselves at the mercy of the Court and undertook not to disobey the orders of the Court in future.
6. It may be stated that the respondents changed their position at a time when the statement of the petitioner had already been recorded and there were indications from the police diaries prepared by respondent No. 1 in the abduction case that the information with regard to the granting of interim bail by this Court to the petitioner had reached their police station long before the respondents went out to arrest him.
7. In view of the fact that the respondents have now withdrawn their defence and admitted all the allegations made in the contempt application made by the petitioner the only question for consideration is whether it is a fit case where the apology tendered by them should be accepted or treated as sufficient amends for their conduct. There can be no doubt that their action in arresting the petitioner in a case in which he had been granted interim bail was a gross type of contempt.
Again when they were summoned to this Court to explain their conduct they took up the false position that they were unaware of the order of bail when they went out to arrest the petitioner.
They retreated from this position only when they found that their story was about to go to pieces on account of certain recitals in the police diaries prepared by respondent No. 1. I am, therefore, not sure if the apology submitted by them really emnates from a sense of repentance and that it is merely a subterfuge to avoid the consequences of their conduct.
8. The respondents are police officers. Their conduct in disregarding an order of bail cannot be viewed but with extreme severity for if such acts are repeated by those entrusted with the enforcement of the laws of the land the entire machinery set up to administer justice in the country will stand paralysed. I, therefore, do not think that the apology tendered by the respondents is sufficient to wash away the contempt they have committed.
9: For the reasons stated above I find all the respondents guilty of contempt of Court under section 4 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1976. I, therefore, sentence respondent No. 1 to simple imprisonment for a period of two months and also direct that he shall pay a fine of Rs. 500 ; in default of payment of fine he shall suffer further simple imprisonment for 'a period of 15 days. As regards respondents Nos. 2 to 4 they were subordinates of respondent No. 1 and possibly they had acted under his influence. I, therefore, do not think that it will lie proper to impose a sentence of imprisonment in their case. Accordingly, I direct each of these three respondents to pay fines of Rs.
1,000 and in default of payment of fine to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of one month.
They are allowed one month to pay the fine. The respondents shall also pay the costs of these proceedings.