' This petition was filed by Nasir Ahmad under section 491, Cr.P.C. Against Rehmat All S.H.O, Azam Ali A.S.I and Feroze Khan A.S.I. Of P.S. Sillanwali, district Sargodha alleging therein that they have illegally detained Arif Mahmood and his brother Qaiser Mehmood, and their cousin Waqar Ahmad.
It was alleged in the petition itself that a case under section 302, P.P.C. Was registered on the statement of one Muhammad Shafi through F.1.R No, 143 dated 5-7-1984 regarding the murder of Muhammad Ashfaq son of Muhammad Tufail. No one was named as an accused in the said F.I.R.
The murder of Ashfaq had taken place in between the night of 4th and 5th July, 1984. It is, therefore, alleged in the petition that the detenus have been taken in custody by the respondents illegally at the instance of Nasir Ahmad Lambardar of the village. I directed the respondents to produce the detenus in Court today. Rehmat Ali S.I., Muhammad Feroze A.S.I. And Muhammad Azam A.S.I. Are present in Court today alongwith Arif Mehmood and Qaiser Mahmood, the two alleged detenus in custody. It is stated by S.I. Rehmat Ali, that these two persons have been taken in custody after finding them involved in the murder of Ashfaq Ahmad. It is further stated by him that these two persons were named as culprits firstly on 10-7-1984 before Muhammad Khan S.I., who was then investigating the case and on 11-7-1984 before Nazar Hussain Inspector, who partly investigated the case. Both these investigating officers recorded evidence regarding motive against Arif Mehmood, the alleged detenu. These two detenus were again named to be the possible culprits on 25-7-1984.
On this date also, evidence on motive was recorded in the police diary. The suspicion was repeated on 29-7-1984, whereafter the investigating officer directed Arif Mahmood and his brother Qaiser Mahmood to join investigation. The suspicion was based firstly on the recovery of the dead body of Muhammad Ashfaq and secondly the evidence pertaining to motive in the case. The two detenus appeared before the police on 30-7-1984 and remained associated with the investigation till 4-8- 1984 when they were formally arrested in the case F.I.R. No, 143 dated 5-7-1984. They are now on judicial remand under orders of a Magistrate.
2. I have gone through the entire case diaries myself and have verified the above facts and dates stated by Rehmat All S.I. (respondent No,1). The said Sub-Inspector has stated that Waqar Ahmad, the alleged detenu, is not in their custody though his person is required for purposes of investigation of the case.
3. In support of this petition under section 491, Cr.P.C., which was filed on 31-7-1984 i.e, a day after the two alleged detenus were associated in the investigation, it is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that Muhammad Shafi had named six persons as assailants of Ashfaq deceased but the Inspector of Police with mala fides recorded the F.I.R. Indicating that it was an unwitnessed occurrence. It is stated by the learned counsel that the complainant on 1-8-1984 made an application to the D.I.G. Police against the said Inspector. It is next contended that the case diaries of this case have been fabricated by S.I. Rehmat Ali for purposes of this petition and in order to falsely implicate Arif Mahmood and Qaiser Mahmood, the two alleged detenus in this case.
4. 1 have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner in detail. I have also gone through the case diaries myself. The alleged detenus now present in Court were named in the case diaries on 10th, 11th, 25th and 29th July, 1984. The evidence regarding the motive for the murder of Ashfaq deceased was also recorded during this period. The dead body of Ashfaq deceased had been recovered from the courtyard of grandfather of the two alleged detenus. The two alleged detenus were, therefore, associated in the investigation on 30-7-1984 and then arrested on 4-8-1984. It appears that after the association of the two alleged detenus with the investigation on 30-7-1984, the present petition was filed in order to impede the course of investigation and hamper the due process of law. The facts of this case indicate that the present petition was not a bona fide petition.
I, therefore, find that this petition has been filed only to set up a defence of Arif Mahmood and Qaiser Mahmood, the two alleged detenus, who have been legally arrested in the murder case of Ashfaq deceased.
The Courts do not function in vacuum and must take due notice of all the facts and circumstances of the case. The bona fides of a petition have to be carefully examined so that no one is permitted to abuse the process of law. In support of this view, I respectfully place reliance on Shaukat All v.
Altaf Hussain Qureshi etc. 1972 SCMR 398 and Muhammad Sharif v. Muhammad Ismail 1982 P Cr. L J 1247. The points raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner can only be gone into after the investigating officer has been examined and cross-examined during the trial. In view of the above, I find that the present petition has no merit and has only been filed to hamper the due process of law with mala fides. It is accordingly dismissed.