1. ' AJMAL MIAN, By this petition the petitioner has impugned respondent 2's action of imposing of bar- fetters and separate confinement on the under trial prisoner Zafar Ali, the brother of the present petitioner (hereinafter referred to as the under trial prisoner). The above petition has been opposed by the official respondents inasmuch as a rejoinder affidavit has been filed by the Assistant Superintendent Prisons, Syed Wilayat Hussain Shah, alleging therein that the above under trial prisoner is involved in ten cases mentioned therein, but according to Mr. A.A. Mohammadally, Acting Advocate-General, at present the under trial prisoner is involved in thirty cases, out of which twenty-six relate to dacoit, one murder and three Hudood Ordinance.
2. ' Mr. Abdul Mujib Pirzada, learned counsel for the petitioner in support of the above petition has vehemently urged that an undertrial prisoner can be kept under fetters if the punishment is given to him for the misconduct and which cannot be beyond the period of three months. He has further submitted that in any case before the under trial prisoner is put under fetters, the Superintendent should apply his mind to the facts. On the other hand, Mr. AA. Mohammadally, learned Acting Advocate-General, has submitted that under Rule 646 read with Rule 644, the Superintendent has the power to impose fetters on an under trial prisoner, if he is of the view that it is required.
3. ' Mr. Abdul Mujib Pirzada, learned counsel for the petitioner, in support of the above submission, has referred to Rule 584(vi), Explanation No, 2, Rules 646, 651(iii) and 723(iv). It may be observed that Rule 584(vi), Explanation No,2, provides the maximum period for which bar-fetters may be continuously imposed as three months, while imposing the same as a major punishment on an undertrial prisoner or on a convict. Whereas, Rule 646 lays down that, if the Superintendent considers necessary to impose the fetters on any convict or undertrial prisoners, he shall record in the history sheet, the reasons for imposition of the fetters and period for which these are imposed.
4. It may further be stated that Rule 651(iii) provides that fetters shall not ordinarily be imposed inter alia on the undertrial prisoner. Whereas Rule 723(iv) which deals with the dangerous prisoners and empowers the Superintendent to have imposed the fetters, but for the reasons to be recorded on the prisoner's history ticket. On the other hand, Mr. A.A. Mohammadally, learned Acting Advocate- General has referred to Rule 643 read with Rule 646.
5. We are inclined to hold that fetters are provided as a punishment as well as precautionary measures in relation to dangerous prisoners. Rule 574(vi), Explanation No,2, relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner, refers to the case of punishment which in our view is not applicable to the instant case. Similarly, Rule 651 (iii) which provides that ordinarily fetters will not be imposed is not applicable in a case of dangerous prisoner. The relevant Rule pertaining to a dangerous under trial prisoner, are Rules 646 and 723 (iv). In our view, under the above two rules, the Superintendent has the power to impose fetters on a dangerous prisoner, but this power is confined upto the maximum period of six months and thereafter the perirssiori of the I.-G. Is required. Mr. A.A. Mohammadally, learned Acting Advocate-General, has placed the relevant record before us to indicate that the case of the under trial prisoner alongwith four other undertrial prisoners, was referred to the I.-G. For sanction for keeping him under fetters, on the ground that he was a dangerous prisoner.
6. ' Mr. Abdul Mujib Pirzada, learned counsel for the petitioner, has vehemently contended that in order to apply fetters, it is necessary that the Superintendent should apply his mind judicially and should record the reasons on the history-ticket of the prisoner and in the present case there is not such endorsement on the history-ticket of the undertrial prisoner. It is true that there is no endorsement of the Superintendent Jail on the history-ticket of the undertrial prisoner, but there is an endorsement to the effect that the sanction of the Inspector-General Prisons had been obtained by the letter mentioned therein, but at the same time here is a Letter No,15606, dated 22- 12-1987 from the Superintendent Central Prison, Karachi, to the Inspector-General, Central Prison Hyderabad, stating therein that the undertrial prisoners mentioned therein were notorious and dangerous, and therefore, the permission was sought to keep them under bar-fetters for more than six months. The above letter include the under trial prisoner in question. If this letter would not have been on the record, one could have urged that the Superintendent Prison had not applied his mind to the facts of the present case. There are thirty cases, according to the learned Acting Advocate-General, pending against the under trial prisoner in question which include 26 of dacoits cases, one murder case and three under Hudood Ordinance. We are unable to agree with the learned counsel for the petitioner that the action taken by the Superintended is mala fide. There seems to be no reason of the malice on the part of the Superintendent Jail in relation to the under trial prisoner. We, therefore, dismiss the above petition with no order as to costs.