The petitioner, namely, Mst. Bashiran Bibi wife of Gulzar Ahmad, by filing this constitutional petition, under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, has assailed the order of detention of her husband, namely, Gulzar Ahmad son of Anwar, passed by District Coordination Officer, Pakpattan (Respondent No. 1) on 25.5.2010.
2. The grounds urged by learned counsel for the petitioner in support of this petition are that the impugned order is based upon rnala fide on the part of the police; that although the detenu was involved in a criminal case in the year 2006, but there is no conviction against him till date; that the impugned order being derogatory to the fundamental rights enshrined by Articles 4, 9, 10 and 25 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan is liable to be declared illegal and may be quashed.
3. Report and parawise comments submitted by Respondent No. 2 reveals that husband of the petitioner, i.e. Gulzar Ahmad, the detenu, along with eight others were involved in certain criminal cases of cattle lifting and were still active in their nefarious activities and despite their involvement in criminal cases, they had not desisted from their ill activities.
4. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner as also the learned Law Officer and going through the record available on the file, I am of the view that order of detention of the detenu merely on the ground that he is involved in nefarious criminal cases of cattle lifting and is also active in other nefarious activities also likely to act in such manner which may be a threat to the public peace and that to prevent him from acting in a manner prejudicial to public safety and peace, it is necessary to prohibit him from acting in such a way, is illegal, inasmuch as no such activities is explained in the impugned order except registration of some criminal cases, which has been pointed out in the report submitted by Respondent No. 1. It is settled principle that where the police had already registered a case against the detenu under various provisions of Penal Code that clearly showed that the detenu was accused of substantive offences and therefore his preventive detention on the same allegations could not be justified in law. Reliance in this-behalf can profitably be made to the case of Mrs. Arshad Ali Khan v. Government of the Punjab through Secretary, Home (1994 SCM R 1532).
5. In these circumstances, I am of the view that the order of detention is result of mala fide on the part of the police because earlier to this order, the detenu had served out detention of thirty days vide order dated 17.4.2010 and after ten days of his release, the impugned order was passed on the same grounds and has been passed without fulfilling the requirements of law and criteria laid down by the superior Courts to keep a citizen of the country under detention for a certain or indefinite period. If the alleged detenu is involved in an activity, which is prejudicial to the public safety and maintenance or in any criminal case, then the law will take its own course for his arrest and not in this manner.
6. Resultantly, this petition is allowed and the order, dated 25.5.2010, passed by Respondent No. 1 is declared to be unlawful and is accordingly quashed. The detenu is directed to be released from custody forthwith, if not required in any other case. No order as to costs.