1. ORDER BHAJANDAS TEJWANI, J.---This petition was filed by the petitioners seeking relief for directions to the respondents/ police officials not to involve the petitioners in fresh cases without the permission of this Court, directions to the respondents not to cause harassment to the petitioners and their family members and restraining them not to arrest the petitioner during the pendency of this petition.
2. On 14-10-2010 this petition was entertained and the official respondents were directed not to harass the petitioners and strictly act in accordance with law. On 15-10-2010 the matter was taken- up on urgent application. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted copy of order dated 14- 10-2010 passed by learned Additional District and Sessions Judge Kotri in which it was complained that the directives of the Court are not being implemented by the police officials and on the contrary the petitioners were arrested outside the Court premises of learned Additional District and Sessions Judge Kotri. Such observations were made by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge Kotri in his letter addressed to DPO Jamshoro that the present petitioners complained that police party was standing outside the Court. It is also disclosed in the said letter of learned Additional District and Sessions Judge Kotri that in Criminal Revision No.61 of 2010 High Court had passed order dated 8-10-2010 that the accused persons shall not be arrested till 12-10-2010 in any case without permission of the High Court and that order was not vacated by this Court. The police inspector was called by learned District and Sessions Judge but he refused to appear before that Court to assist or ascertain that whether any F.I.R. Is lodged against the petitioners, but in spite of that the petitioners were arrested outside the Court premises.
3. In response to the notice dated 15-10-2010 respondents/police officials "except Anti-Corruption Police appeared before this Court on 18-10-2010 and made a statement that no harassment will be caused to the petitioners and action, if any, will be taken in accordance with law. In the meantime the endorsement of bailiff of 1st Senior Civil Judge Hyderabad Court dated 16-10-2010 was also received which indicated that the petitioners were in custody and in handcuffs with officials of ACE, who refused to accept the process of the Court and took the petitioners in vehicles to avoid the process of the Court. After going through the endorsement of the bailiff of Hyderabad Court, this Court directed the officials of ACE to be present before this Court along with petitioners and show- cause notices were issued to them that why the contempt proceedings should not be initiated against them on account of avoiding to accept the process of this Court.
4. Today, the officials of Anti-Corruption Establishment are present and have submitted reply to the show-cause notices and copies of F.I.Rs. Nos.3, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8 of 2010 lodged with ACE Kotri on 14- 10-2010 in respect of incident allegedly taken place on 26-12-1991.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the District Police as well as Anti-Corruption Police due to political victimization have started the arrest of the petitioners, their family members, well-wishers and supporters and this is sheer highhandedness of the police that they are acting on the influence of political figures of ruling party by violating the provisions of constitution and fundamental rights, which have guaranteed the life and liberty of the citizen. The learned counsel points out that F.1.Rs. Of alleged incident which allegedly had taken place in the year 1991 have been lodged-after passage of 19 years and the arrest of the petitioners were made in complete defiance of the orders of this Court. Learned counsel has referred the C.P. No.D-447 of 2010 filed by the present petitioners seeking their protection against the police department in which I.G. Sindh was directed to initiate an independent inquiry and investigation against the police officials, who were found to be involved in the commission of misconduct as the petitioners were detained unlawfully and were recovered on the raid conducted by the Magistrate on the directive of this Court. Learned counsel also referred the report of learned District and Sessions Judge Hyderabad who conducted the inquiry on the directive of this Court in which the learned District and Sessions Judge Thatta has concluded that the F.I.R. On account of commission of misconduct by the police authorities was registered against the police officials .Prima facie found responsible in the incident.
6. The learned counsel have lastly prayed that in view of the above position when the petitioners, who are respectable persons of this country are being frequently involved, booked, arrested, detained by violating the law, provisions of fundamental rights and all norms of justice and it has come in the notice of this Court therefore the proceedings initiated on the basis of F.I.Rs. Nos.3, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8 of 2010 at ACE Kotri may be quashed.
7. Mr. Adnan Karim Memon, learned Assistant Advocate General. Sindh appearing for the officials respondents was unable to respond the violation of law and fundamental rights of the petitioners by police but he contended that this petition was for a limited purpose and that a fresh case against the petitioners should not be registered and that no harassment should be caused to the petitioners and restraining the respondents for arrest of the petitioners, as such beyond the scope of such prayer and no prayer for quashment of proceeding can be allowed .By this Court in Constitutional jurisdiction.
8. On a specific question whether in such situation the petitioners who are prima facie being involved with mala fide intention and the powers conferred and the authority of the State are being flagrantly misused in spite of the orders of this Court and above factual position the learned A.A,-G contended that for this purpose the petitioners will have to move bail application before the concerned Court.
9. I have heard .The arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Assistant Advocate-General, Sindh and carefully examined the available record.
10. It is manifest from the conduct of the police including the Anti-Corruption Police that they are acting on the influence and advise of some political figure and not with bona fide intention, the petitioners were constrained to challere the acts of the State functionaries in C.P. No.477 of 2010 before this Court and on the directives of This Court raid was conducted and petitioners were found in illegal confinement for which F.I.R. Has been lodged against responsible police officials.
11. The petitioners while appearing before the Additional Sessions Judge Kotri complained to the learned Judge that the police surrounded the Court and they will be arrested if they go outside the Court. The learned Judge called the concerned police officials but they did not respond to the learned Judge and did not come on the call of the Court and the petitioners were arrested on 14- 10-2010 when prior to this i.e. On 12-10-2010 the petitioners approached this Court with such apprehension that they are being falsely and malafidely involved in the cases and that no case may be ordered to be registered without permission of this Court. This Court also directed in Criminal Revision No.61 of 2010 that the present petitioners will not be arrested till 12-10-2010 without the permission of the High Court and such intimation was conveyed by the learned District and Sessions Judge Kotri to DPO B Jamshoro by letter dated 14-10-2010 but even then Anti-Corruption Department was assigned the job to do the needful and to cause arrest of the present petitioners in an anti-corruption matter incident of which is allegedly taken place 19 years back.
12. The Deputy Director on a question replied that the Anti-Corruption Establishment have unable to locate or arrest any Public Servant involved in the alleged crime and that no permission is on the record from competent authority for arrest of the present petitioners. The Chapter of fundamental rights enshrined in the Constitution fully protects the rights of persons with regard to his life and liberty and his treatment in accordance with law, which is a inalienable right but it appears from the matter in hand and keeping in view of the above facts that the State C functionaries have been flagrantly and frequently violating the law and even they are not respecting the orders/directives of this Court, as aforementioned, and in such situation the Court will not refrain itself from assuming the jurisdiction to undo the wrong and to save the respectable citizens of the country from the pre-planed victimization, therefore, this is a fit case in which jurisdiction can be exercised so that not only petitioners but people may feel secured that the Court of law will definitely come forward to secure their rights guaranteed by the Constitution of this country Accordingly, the petitioners are allowed interim post-arrest bail in every case i.e. In Crimes Nos.3, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8 of 2010 of ACE Kotri subject to their furnishing surety in the sum of Rs.50,000 each in each case and P.R. Bond in the like amounts to the satisfaction of the Nazir of this Court. The petitioners shall be set at liberty from this Court on furnishing such sureties.
13. With regard to the reply of show-cause notice submitted by Aftab Mujdid Isran, Deputy Director, Mohammad Ismail Abbasi, Assistant Director (Executive) and Muhammad Murad Channa, Circle Officer, Anti-Corruption Establishment, Hyderabad, it may be observed that the reply to show- cause notice are not satisfactory as they have avoided to submit any explanation with regard to the endorsement of the bailiff that they actually avoided the process of the Court. The matter is, therefore, fixed on 26-10-2010 for hearing the argument of learned Advocate General Sindh as well as learned counsel for the petitioners to consider that whether the said officials are liable for action under the provisions of contempt of Court or not.
14. In the meantime and in order to protect petitioners from further humiliation, Inspector General Police Sindh and Director Anti-Corruption Sindh are restrained from arresting the petitioners in any case, without leave of this Court. The order to the extent of this direction will be effective for six (6) months.
15. The petitioners are officials of Anti-Corruption Establishment will appear in person on the next date of hearing.
16. The copies of this order be communicated to I.G. Police, Sindh and Director Anti-Corruption Sindh for circulation in entire Sindh and compliance.