'SHEZADA MAZHAR, J.---Facts leading to the filing of present petition are that case F.I.R. No,482/2013 dated 16-8-2013 was registered under section 395, P.P.C. With Police Station Makhdum Rasheed, District Multan against Muhammad Riaz son of Allah Bukhsh, Ghulam Abbas alias Abbasa son of Muhammad Aslam, Muhammad Alyas alias Alyasa son of Muhammad Bukhsh, Gull Sher son of Allah Bukhsh and Fayyaz Ahmad. In the said F.I.R., respondent No,3 allegedly, illegally and without any lawful justification detained petitioner's sons namely Ghulam Abbas and Alyas. The petitioner filed an application under section 491, Cr.P.C. In the Court of learned Sessions Judge Multan who appointed bailiff. The bailiff visited the police station and produced the alleged detenus before the court and the court passed the following order on 17-8-2013:-- "Matter needs probe, therefore, Mr. Maqbool Hussain, DSP, Makhdum Rasheed Circle was called. DSP seeks time to verify the guilt of both the accused/detenus. Prima facie, parentage of both the accused/detenus is different from the mentioned in the F.I.R., therefore, both the accused/detenus are set at liberty subject to furnishing surety bonds in the sum of Rs,one lakh each with one surety each in the like amount to the satisfaction of this Court with the condition that surety shall produce both the detenus before this Court whenever required. DSP shall submit report about the guilt of both the accused/detenus before this Court on 21-8-2013. Both the detenus as well as petitioner shall join the investigation with the DSP."
2. In the present petition, learned counsel for the petitioner has challenged the above mentioned order of the learned Sessions Judge to the extent of furnishing surety bonds in the sum of Rs,1,00,000 each with one surety each.
3. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that the petition under section 491, Cr.P.C. Was never converted into bail therefore, learned Sessions Judge could not demand the surety. Further submits that the learned Sessions Judge could only release the detenus after the verification that the detention of the detenus was illegal. In the present case, parentage, of both, the detenus is different from the contents mentioned in the F.I.R., therefore, the learned Sessions Judge could only pass order for the release of the detenus. In this regard, learned counsel relies upon case-law titled: "Muhammad Shaft v. Muhammad Boota and another: (PLD 1975 Lahore 729).
4. Learned AAG was called and was directed to assist this Court in this matter. He supports the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge as the same is in accordance with law and In this regard relies upon case law titled: "Haji Hasnain v. Superintendent of Police Jacobabad and 8 others" (2001 M LD 1295).
5. I have heard the arguments of both the learned counsel and have also gone through the judgments referred above.
6. I am afraid that the case law referred by the counsels is of no assistance as the matter in controversy is "Whether the court while proceeding on petition under section 491, Cr.P.C. Can call for security for the release of the detenus from the alleged illegal custody or not?". The judgment relied upon by the learned counsel for petitioner titled: "Muhammad Shafi v. Muhammad Boota and another" (PLD 1975 Lahore 729) in which it was held as under:-- "Section 491 Code of the Criminal Procedure and Article 9 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan provide a remedy in all cases of wrongful deprivation of personal liberty. The Court secures the liberty of the person by ordering his immediate release from unlawful detention. It cannot grant any other relief to the detenu in respect of allegations of wrongful detention or any allegation of torture or some other inhumane acts committed on his person. This, however, does not mean that such a person has no remedy law. For every wrong there is a remedy and for every injury caused to a person he can claim damages in the form of compensation. Wrongful detention is also an offence under the Pakistan Penal Code, and if the police is reluctant to register a case or investigate it, the complainant may file a complaint direct to the Magistrate. If only persons in Pakistan were to become conscious of their rights under law, and enforce their claims for damages for wrongful detentions under the law of Torts against Police Officers guilty of such highhandedness and illegal acts, the reign of terror let loose by them will, be a great extent, come under control. They indulge in these activities without compunction, because they fear no harm.
The Court, on finding that the detention is illegal, orders release, and the detenu, feeling satisfied with the release, taken no further action. With such an apathy on the part, of suffering people one cannot expect any change in the conduct of delinquent Police Officers. Unless there is a realization of one's rights, and consciousness of the fact that the miscreants should be brought to book, there cannot be a hope for better conditions."
7. The above para clarifies that the judgment is of no help in the controversy in hand. Similarly, the judgment relied upon by the learned AAG reported as "HO Hasnain v. Superintendent of Pt ice Jacobabad and 8 others" (2001 M LD 1295), although is related to illegal detention, but is of no help in the present controversy.
8. High Court has already granted powers of section 491 of the Code of the Criminal Procedure 1898 to the Sessions Judges under section 491(1-A) of the Code of the Criminal Procedure 1898. The Hon'ble High Court has framed rules for the exercise of powers under section 491 of the Code of the Criminal Procedure 1898 and in Volume V, Chapter 4, Part-F, Rule 3 states as under:- "If the application for an order under clause (a) or (b) of subsection (1) of the section alleges that a person is confined under such circumstances that the confinement amounts to an offence, the Court may, at the time of issuing a rule nisi, also issue a search warrant, and the person to whom the warrant is directed, may search for the person so confined; and such search shall be made in accordance therewith, and the person, if found, shall be immediately brought before the Court, which shall made such order in the circumstances of the case may seem to be proper."
9. The above said Rule 3 clearly states that on production of detenu, the Court have the powers to make such order as in the circumstances of the case may seem to be proper.
10. In the present case, due to difference of parentage of the alleged accused of the F.I.R./detenus, the learned Sessions Judge granted time to DSP to verify the guilt of both the accused/detenus and in the meantime, the detenus were set at liberty subject to furnishing security. It is obvious from the above order that the security was obtained only, for the production of the detenus/accused in the F.I.R. For their production in future, if the same is required, respondent No,1 had ample powers/jurisdiction under above noticed rule to pass such an order.
11. In the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court finds no illegality in the impugned order, therefore, the present petition is dismissed.