This is a habeas corpus petition filed by Alamgir Ahmad under section 491, Cr. P. C. For the recovery of his father Niaz Abmad, mother Mst. Majidan and the wife of his brother Mst. Parveen alongwith a minor, from the illegal custody of the respondent S. H. O. P. S. Model Town, Lahore, and for setting them at liberty. Under the orders of this Court dated 30th August, 1982 a bailiff was deputed to effect the recovery of the aforesaid detenus and produce them in this Court. A notice was also issued to the respondent S. H. O. Accordingly, the bailiff recovered the alleged detenus from the custody of the respondent and produced them in the Court on 31st August, 1981. The S. H. O.
Respondent alongwith Walayat Khan A. S. I. Appeared on that date. The statements of the detenus as well as Walayat Khan A. S. I. Were recorded. Since, the presence of Ch. Muhammad Anwar A.S.I.
And Muhammad Manzoor M.H.C. Was necessary in view of the statements made by the detenus, the case was adjour--ned to 1th September, 1982 with a direction to the aforesaid police officials to be present in the Court on the adjourned date.
2. Ch. Muhammad Anwar S. I. And Muhammad Manzoor M. H. C. Appeared in the Court on 1st September, 1982. They were confronted with the statements made by the detenus. Their statements were also recorded.
3. In substance, Niaz Ahmad detenu stated that on 25th August, 1982 he saw Ch. Muhammad Anwar S. I. Who in the company of certain Police constables, came to his house; effected a forcible entry and asked about the whereabouts of Jahangir, his son, about which he told the S. I. That Jahangir was a truck driver so he could not provide him with a stationary clue at that moment. The police put him in a pick up and took him to the Police Station Model Town, Lahore all the way abusing and repeatedly asking him as to the whereabouts of his son and on reaching the Police Station he was confined in a room. Mst. Majidan, wife of Niaz Ahmad stated that on the night between 25/26th August, 1982 about 3 O' Clock Ch. Muhammad Anwar S. I. Alongwith some constables gained an access to their house by scaling over the wall. She was made to unlock the main door and put the light on. Then she and her daughter-in-law Mst. Parven, the wife of Jahangir, were abused and insulted and thereafter, they were forcibly taken to the Police Station bare-footed and uncovered where they were kept in the upper storey of the Police Station. Mst. Parveen was with a minor child in her lap. At the Police Station they were again abused and insulted and kept till recovered by the bailiff. Mst. Parveen endorsed the statement of her mother-in-law.
4. On the other hand, Ch. Muhammad Anwar S. I. Denied all these allegations. He and Walayat Khan A. S. I. Made a reference to a case No. 181/82 registered at the Police. Station of which as alleged the investigation was entrusted to walayat Khan A. S. I. In respect of which he visited the house of Niaz Ahmad to arrest Jahangir whereby Niaz Ahmad told him that Jahangir was not present and promised to produce Jahangir the moment he came across him. Walayat Khan A. S. I. Maintained in his statement that the bailiff visited the Police Station in his absence. There was no case as registered against the detenus. Muhammad Manzoor M.H.C. Stated only to the affect that Niaz Ahmad detenu visited the Police Station in order to see Walayat Khan A. S. I. Who was investigating into the aforesaid case. Since Walayat Khan A. S. I. Had gone to Kotlakhpat on duty Niaz Ahmad waited for him (Walayat Khan A. S. L). According to him when the bailiff visited the Police Station Niaz Ahmad detenu was sitting there waiting for Walayat Khan A. S. I. And the two ladies were descending the stairs. The ladies had effected their entrance without his knowledge from the back side.
5. According to the report of the bailiff Niaz Ahmad was found sitting on a cot in a Barrack of the Police Station and the two ladies descending the stairs. On his enquiry from the alleged detenus the bailiff was told that they had been in detention for the last 4/5 days.
6. In the light of all the statements existing on the file alongwith the necessary links standing side by side such as the filing of the petition for recovery of the alleged detenus to be produced before this Court and dealt with according to law, the recovery of the alleged detenus by the bailiff from the premises of the Police Station, their immediate disclosure as t the fact of detention to the bailiff and absence of any sanction in law behind the detention, it appears as a case of illegal detention. Had the detenus gone there voluntarily, there would have been no cause to complain about.
7. Taking the case as it is, it is painful to note that police is resorting A to such a measure to compel the attendance of a family member, the tactic which they have adopted of bringing the females as well as the male to the Police Station to be kept there in order to give on idea or apprehension to the person who is required by them that if he does not appear voluntarily his family is likely to be disgraced and dishonoured, is abhorring. It is high time to take notice of these things, when as to the rule of law Islamization is at the threshold of this country. According to the tenets of Islam the ladies are entitled to an extraordinary respect the least of which in this case has not been shown.
This is a case in which the power and official position has been outrageously used. The shabby treatment and the indecency with which the alleged detenus have been met and kept in wrongful confinement is an indication of the way this side of the administration is going on in this country.
This is otherwise perhaps due to the latitude afforded to them that they do not bother as to the law.
It is in judicial experience that most of them very often exceed their limits and being meant for law and order themselves behave in violation thereof. To add to this is yet they all go without any censor. The honour and respect of a citizen is so dear and precious that a profane infringement thereto, cannot be tolerated for these persons who are being sustained on the exchequer maintained by the public. I do not know as to why the ethical code of this country is ineffective in respect with them. I was with a mind to order their prosecu--tion but they have tendered their apology to Niaz Ahmad and the other two ladies who have accepted that. Anyhow Ch. Muhammad Anwar S. I. Is debited with costs to the extent of Rs. 500 so as to cover up the miscellaneous expenses and expenses incurred by the petitioner in engaging the counsel. The amount as to the costs is to be deposited within three days in the office of this Court to be paid to the petitioner. The police officials i.e. Iftikhar Ahmad Inspector/S. H. O. , Ch. Muhammad Anwar S. I., Walayat Khan A. S. I.
And Muhammad Manzoor M. H. C. Are being let off with a serious warning as to their acts and they should take it that they are not the only persons in feathers living in Pakistan so as to make a game of the citizens of this country the way they like. The services which most of them are rendering towards the citizens is obvious from the judicial annals. As to their position they have made a world of their own where they are burdening this country without a proper check.
In view of what has been stated above this case is disposed of. The detenus are set at liberty.