1. NASIR ASLAM ZAHID, C J.--According to the learned counsel for the applicant, applicant's two sons namely Abdul Khaliq and Muhammad Suleman alias Battoo were arrested by a Police party headed by Sub-Inspector Inam Muhammad on 1-2-1994 from the house of the applicant. The allegation is that, on 1-2-1994 at about 5-30 a.m. In the morning, the said Police party jumped over the boundary wall of the house of applicant, entered the house and remained in the house for about 10 minutes during which the Police officials humiliated, insulted and manhandled ladies in the house and thereafter took both the sons of the applicant to some unknown place. According to the applicant; the same, day, that is 1-2-1994, at about 9-30 a.m. One of the two sons, namely, Abdul haliq came back and disclosed that the Police took them to Napier Police Station where they were produced before Police Inspector Abdul Sattar Detho, who allowed Abdul Khaliq to go back, but started beating Muhammad Suleman alias Battoo severely without giving any reasons, and other members of the Police party also participated in the physical torture. According to the applicant, he made all reports to enquire the reasons for arrest/detention of his son from Abdul Sattar Detho and Sub---Inspector Inam Muhammad but the reasons were not intimated.
2. According to the applicant, he visited Napier Police Station time and again and information was given by someone there that Inspector Abdul Sattar Detho and Sub---Inspector Inam Muhammad belonged to Anti-Burgalary Staff of Sindh Police and, on 8-2-1994, one Police Constable told the applicant that Inspector Abdul Sattar Detho is demanding Rs.50,000 for releasing the detenu.
3. According to the applicant, he was not allowed to see his son in detention and he seriously apprehended that his con might he killed In the circumstances, the present application under section 491, Cr.P.C. Was filed on 9-2-1994. The application came before us on 10-2-1994 and notice was issued to the Advocate-General for 13-2-1994. On 13-2-1994, it was adjourned for 14-2-1994, when a detailed order was passed and the Deputy Nazir of this Court was sent along with S.H.O.
4. Napier Police Station who had been called to Court to check whether Inspector Abdul Sattar Detho confined the detenu at the Police lock-up of Napier Police Station, as S.H.O. Napier Police Station had informed the Court that the Police lock-up at Napier Police Station was also used by Inspector Abdul Sattar Detho for keeping his detunes. Report of the Deputy Nazir, who accompanies S.H.O.
5. Napier Police Station, was put up before the Court yesterday afternoon and, according to the report, the detenu had been confined by the Detection Cell of Karachi South but at about 12-20 p.m. Yesterday (while the S.H.O. Of Police Station Napier was before the Court) the detenu was taken away by the Police Officials working under Inspector Detho. The Court 'took very serious notice of this fact that, apparently getting information that the case was before the Court and the Deputy Nazir was going to the Police Station Napier to bring the detunes to this Court, perhaps, the detenu had been removed to avoid his production before the Court. In the circumstances, the learned Additional Advocate-General Mr. Siddique Kharal, who was present, was asked to direct the Inspector-General of Police to ensure the presence of Inspector Abdul Sattar Detho of Detection Cell, Karachi South to be. Present in Court at 8-30 a.m. Today and also produce detenu Muhammad Suleman alias Battoo and further direction was given that in case the custody of detenu had been shifted elsewhere, the Inspector of Police should see to it that the detenu is before this Court today at 8-30 a.m.
6. As observed, Inspector Abdul Sattar Detho and Investigating Officer Sub-Inspector Inam Muhammad are present with police papers of Crime No.34/1991 of Police Station Kalari, Karachi and they have also produced the detenu, who is in their custody. According to the. Admitted position, the detenu was arrested in a murder case in June 1990; he was sent up for trial but then he was, acquitted in July 1993 by the VIth Additional District & Sessions Judge, Karachi East. It is informed teat during all this period, the detenu remained in custody. According to the applicant, the detenu was arrested this time on 1-2-1993 along with his brother but, according to the statement filed by Sub---Inspector Inam Muhammad of Detection Cell, District South Karachi, the allegation that the arrest had taken place on 1-2-1994 is incorrect. According to the statement in writing of the Investigating Officer, he had received spy information that .One "Rado" wrist watch (along with some cash) which had been robbed from complainant Saleh Muhammad son of Muhammad Haroon in Crime No.34/1991 of P.S. Kalari was passed on to the detenu by his friends Suleman alias Battoo and Ghulam Abbas in order to sell it and distribute the sale proceeds. According to the Investigating Officer, on this information, a search was mounted for trace of the suspects and, on 9-2-1994, detenu Suleman alias Battoo was found in Karachi Administration Society riding a motor-cycle and, on the pointation of a Mukhbar-e-Khas, he was stopped and interrogated and, also asked to produce the documents pertaining to the motor-cycle but he could not satisfy the Police and produce the documents of the motor-cycle and, in the circumstances, he was arrested in Crime No.34/1991 of P.S. Kalari and the motor-cycle was seized under section 550, Cr.P.C.
7. According to thenvestigating Officer, the house of the detenu was searched but the Rado watch was not found and Police remand has been taken from the Court on 10-2-1994 which is valid till 16- 2-1994. According to the Sub-Inspector Inam Muhammad, investigation has been accelerated, but so far no success could be achieved. He states that the investigation continues and further action would be taken as warranted by law.
8. On being asked as to whether statement of a single witness has been recorded, which implicates detenu, during the period he has remained in custody of the Police, the Investigating Officer frankly admits that no evidence at all could be collected. On being further asked to be specified about what has been done, Sub-Inspector Inam Muhammad informs that,. On 9-2-1994 when the detenu had been arrested, his' interrogation was conducted by the Investigating Officer for a few hours and then, on 12-2-1994, he along with the' informer searched Lyari area from 2-00 p.m.To 8-00 p.m.
9. To apprehend the co---accused but the effort proved unsuccessful. It was informed that, on 13-2- 1994, the Investigating Officer further interrogated the detenu from 10-00 a.m. To 1-00 p.m. And, on 14-2-1994, from 12-00 noon to 3-00 p.m., but no evidence whatsoever of any kind implicating the detenu has been found since the arrest of the detenu.
10. Mr. Siddique Khaial, Additional Advocate-General, Sindh, on instructions from Inspector Abdul Sattar Detho, states that as no evidence has been found, the detenu is being released now under section 169, Cr.P.C.
11. Detune Muhammad Suleman alias Battoo is free as not required in Crime No.34/1991 of Police Station Kalari, Karachi.
12. Dr. Hameed Ahmed Ayaz, on instructions of the applicant, states that the statement filed by Sub- Inspector Inam Muhammad to the effect that the Detune had been arrested on 9-2-1994 and not earlier is false. According to the applicant, the detenu has been kept in unlawful custody for about 15 days. Applicant has made serious grievance about the manner of raid including the jumping over the walls by the, Police party, misbehaviour with family members of his family and the torture to his son. It is stated by the applicant that he will take civil/criminal proceedings against the concerned Police officials for all such illegal actions. The applicant is free to resort of any civil/criminal actions against the defaulting Police officials as may be available to the applicant anti to detenu.
13. We are disturbed in this case on account of the allegations made against Inspector Abdul Sattar Detho and Sub-Inspector Inam Muhammad of Detection Cell District South Karachi. We also find it difficult to appreciate the attitude of the Inspector and the Investigating Officer in keeping the detenu in custody despite having no evidence whatsoever against him and this detention, even according to the Police extends to a period of six days. If, at all, the detenu had been arrested on suspicion and there was no evidence available, he should have been released in a day or two after interrogation. Admittedly, in this case, not single statement of any witness has been recorded which implicates the detenu and an unqualified statement has been made that there is no evidence against the detenu. To reiterate, if at all the detenu had been arrested, he should have been released within a few hours or at the most within E a day and if there was possibility of any evidence being made available in future, instead of releasing him under section 169, Cr.P.C. He should have been released under section 497, Cr.P.C. In the circumstances, a copy of this order may be sent to the Inspector-General of Police to initiate an enquiry against Inspector Abdul Sattar Detho and Sub-Inspector Inam Muhammad in the light of the facts mentioned in this order and the observations made herein.
14. Criminal Misc. A. No. 99/1994 stands disposed of accordingly.