1. ' Mst. Khurshid Bibi wife of Mohammad Ibrahim, resident of House No,39, Gali Kakkayzaian, Main Bazar, Sheikhupura, has filed this petition under section 491, Cr.P.C. Praying for a writ of habeas corpus. She alleged that Mohammad Ibrahim son of Ilam Din and Maqsood Ahmad son of Mohammad Ibrahim the former her husband, the latter her son, had been illgally detained by the Station House Officer of Police Station, Township, Lahore.
2. ' By my order dated 27-10-1984, I directed that a Bailiff be deputed to recover the detenus and produce them before this Court. The Police Officer, incharge of the Police Station was also directed to appear personally alongwith the record. On the same day the Bailiff visited the Police Station in compliance with my order. Case came up for hearing on 28-10-1984. The Bailiff submitted that he did not find the detenus there.
3. ' Rehmat All A.S.I. Who was present in Court admitted that he called the detenus to the Police Station Township, in order to find out the whereabouts of Nazir, step son of the petitioner against whom a case of abduction vide F.I.R. No, 222/83 had been registered. The A.S.I. Admitted that the detenus were sent for but then they were allowed to go.
4. This fact was challenged by the petitioner. She asserted that they were still in the custody of the police. She submitted that the A.S.I. Demanded Rs,5,000 as illegal gratification for releasing thel detenus and for showing favour to Nazir.
5. ' I ordered the A.S.I. To produce the two detenus. Case was adjourned to the following day.
6. ' On 29-10-1984, both the detenus appeared. They submitted that they were in the custody of the A.S.I., who set them free. I decided to record the statement of the detenus and told the A.S.I. To engage a counsel if so desired, to cross-examine the detenus or he could himself do so. Accordingly Muhammad Ibrahim's statement was recorded on 4-11-1984.
7. ' Muhammad Ibrahim son of Ilam Din aged about 78, Dhobi by Caste, resident of Gali Kakkayzian, Main Bazar, Sheikhupura, deposed that on 24-10-1984 at 11 o'clock Rehmat Ali, A.S.I. Present in Court came to his house at Sheikhupura alongwith four persons, two of them were policemen while the other two were in plain clothes.
8. They took him and his son Maqsood to the Police Station, Township, Lahore. Both were confined in a room on the top of the police station. They were kept there till 27-10-1984. Then the police took them to the graveyard at 2 p.m. Ibrahim was locked there in a room. Maqsood was kept outside in the graveyard. Ibrahim was taken out of the room at 7 in the evening. Then he and his son were,. Taken to a house of some one in the Mohalla near the graveyard. Both son and the father were locked in that house. They were kept there for a night and on Sunday morning they were given tea by the occupants of the house. They also gave them Rs,15 and told them that they could leave for Sheikhupura. One of the occupants of the house helped them in boarding a bus of route No,213, leading towards Ravi Bridge. The father and the son reached Sheikhupura in the afternoon.
9. ' Ibrahim said that on 24-10-1984 when the A.S.I. Went to his house at Sheikhupura after putting both of them in the car, he demanded Rs,5,000 in order to set them free. Ibrahim being a poor person did not even pay a penny.
10. The A.S.1. Enquired about Nazir son of Ibrahim from his first wife.
11. ' When questioned by the Court, Ibrahim said that he did not know the name of the occupant of the house where he was kept on Saturday night. He said that he could point out the said hOuse.
12. ' Ibrahim was cross-examined by counsel for the A.S.I. In cross-examination he said that Nazir was married to one Yasmeen daughter of Shafi. He did not know the details of his marriage. It took place in Sheikhupura. It was a regular marriage. He said that the police did not ask him in a definite manner about Nazir and Yasmeen. He denied that he was not detained. He further submitted to the Court that during the period they were detained they were not beaten by the polilce.
13. ' The A.S.I. Did not lead any evidence nor he appeared as his own witness. He only filed a written reply, the gist of which is as under: ' A case under section 11/7/79 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979, was registered at the instance of Muhammad Shafi for the abduction of his daughter Yasmeen aged 15/16 against Abdul Sattar.
14. In 1984 said Abdul Sattar disclosed that actually Yasmeen was abducted by Nazir son of Ibrahim. Nazir was not available. That is why the A.S.I. Visited his parents and joined Ibrahim in the investigation who promised to produce Nazir on 26-10-1984 at Lahore. Instead of bringing Nazir, Ibrahim alongwith his son Maosood reached Police Station Township. They were interrogated and released..The same evening. In support of this the A.S.I.
15. Has annexed the Zimnies, dated 24-10-1984, 26-10-1984 and 5-10-1984. It is mentioned that the detenus were not recovered from the Police Station or from his custody when the Bailiff raided the police station. According to him, the only purpose for levelling allegations against him is to pressurize the A.S.I. And restrain him from proper investigation of the case.
16. ' Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that the statement of Ibrahim who is aged 78 cannot be disbelieved under any circumstances. He deposed on solemn affirmation whatever happened to him from the beginning to the end.
17. ' Counsel for the A.S.I. Submitted that the detenus were never detained. The A.S.I. Acted in accordance with law. He discharged his duty diligently. Hence, no action is to be taken against him.
18. ' I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties. I have no reason to disbelieve the statement of Ibrahim. He stated on oath and told the entire story from the beginning to the end as to what happened to him and his son.
19. ' In view of this, I hereby direct the D.I.-G., Lahore Range, Lahore, to register a case against the A.S.I. For illegal detention and for demanding illegal gratification. The A.S.I. Shall then be tried by a Court of competent jurisdiction strictly in accordance with law.
20. ' Compliance of this order shall be reported to the Registrar of this Court, forthwith.
21. ' The petition is disposed of accordingly.