Persuant to the preceding order, the Bailiff deputed by this Court had raided Police Station. Green Town, Lahore and after the recovery of Abdul Rashid, the alleged detenu, he has produced him before this Court.
2. According to the Bailiffs report, he visited the police station at 2-30 p.m. Yesterday and found Abdul Rashid detenu sleeping on a cot in the police barrack. According to him, on his query he told him that he had been brought by the police about four days earlier and was being kept there but without any torture. He has further reported that respondent No.2, who was present at the Police Station, told him that a fraud had been alleged in an application moved against the detenu and his group in connection with sale of a plot in Sector No.2 of Township, Lahore and he had been summoned in that connection. He states that he perused the application containing a number of enclosures. However, he found the detenu in illegal custody of the police as no case had been registered against him nor there was entry of his arrest in the Daily Diary Register of the Police Station.
3. Respondents Nos.1 and 2, before this Court, have taken the same stand which respondent No.2 had almost taken before the Bailiff, that is to say, that Abdul Rashid detenu was summoned to the Police Station on the application of Ghulam Abbas, respondent No.3 alleging fraud against his brother Abdul Aziz Wajid petitioner, who was summoned but since he was not available, his brother Abdul Rashid detenu came to the Police Station at 8.00 a.m. In the morning of his own accord and he was asked to produce his brother, the petitioner herein, for settling the dispute with Ghulam Abbas respondent No.3. They state that he was not being kept in illegal custody.
4. Abdul Rashid, the alleged detenu, states that he was taken to the Police Station by A.S.I. Tanvir Shah, respondent No.2 on 7-4-1991 and was being kept in the illegal custody as a hostage for the appearance of his brother, the petitioner, against whom there were some allegations in the application of Ghulam Abbas, respondent No.3.
5. If Ghulam Abbas respondent No.3 had made an application to respondent No.1, alleging fraud and forgery against Abdul Aziz Wajid petitioner, then the proper course for him was to have registered a case and embarked upon its investigation and he had no business to summon him or his brother to the Police Station for holding an enquiry on the application. He and respondent No.2 adopted a wrong course for which both are sorry and undertake not to do in future. So far its Abdul Rashid detenu is concerned, his custody; whether it was for a few days or it was for a few hours, was illegal and without lawful authority and he is set at liberty. The habeas corpus petition is disposed of accordingly.
S.A./A-1270/L Detenu released