' This petition was filed under section 491, Cr.P.C. For the recovery of Muhammad Ilyas and Muhammad Abbas sons of the petitioner Muhammad Boota, the alleged detenus, from the illegal confinement of respondents on 20-6-1995. Vide order, dated 20-6-1995, bailiff of this Court was deputed to recover the alleged detenus from the illegal confinement of the respondents. According to the bailiff report when he visited the Police Station Cantt., Multan for the recovery of alleged detenus in pursuance of the order of this Court at about 4-45 p.m., on the same day, he found Muhammad Ilyas and Muhammad Abbas in the lock-up. The detenus stated before the bailiff that they were arrested in the evening of 19-6-1995. According to bailiff no corresponding entry was recorded in the Daily Diary with regard to the arrest of the detenus in the police station. On his enquiry, the S.H.O. Stated that the detenus were arrested on 20-6-1995 in a case F.I.R. No,215, dated 20-6-1995 under section 337(i), 337(ii) and 337-A(iv). When the bailiff asked Muhammad Khalid, S.H.O. Police Station Cantt., Multan to hand over the custody of the detenus to him as there was no entry regarding their arrest was existed in the Daily Diary of the police station, the S.H.O. Took the stand that as the detenus are nominated in the aforementioned case, he will produce the detenus himself in the Court. The S.H.O. Police Station Multan Cantt. Has further tried to deceive the bailiff by taking stand that the person behind the lock-up was Muhammad Fayyaz and not Muhammad Abbas while according to the petitioner (father of the detenus) the person behind the bar was Muhammad Abbas. This fact by itself speak volume of malicious conduct of Muhammad Khalid, S.H.O. Police Station Multan Cantt. On enquiry of the Court, Muhammad Khalid, S.H.O. Conceded that the persons behind the bar were both Muhammad Ilyas and Muhammad Abbas. He tendered his unconditional apology in Court. Taking a lenient view no further action is proposed and he is warned to remain careful in future and if such like attitude is repeated this Court will take a serious notice of it.
2. Both the detenus Muhammad Abbas and Muhammad Ilyas have been examined in this Court.
They deposed that they remained in the police lock-up of the Police Station Multan Cantt. Since the evening of 19-6-1995 and were not produced before any Court during the period. Muhammad Irshad, Si., is also examined in this Court. He deposed that he arrested both the detenus on 20-6- 1995 in case F.I.R. No,215, dated 20-6-1995. He further deposed that Muhammad Ilyas and Muhammad Fayyaz (not arrested so for) were nominated in the F.I.R. While Muhammad Abbas was arrayed as accused in the case on the supplementary statement of the complainant. He also submitted that entry with regard to the arrest of the detenus has been made in the Police Post, Mall Road, Multan Cantt.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that in fact the detenus were arrested on 19-6-1995 without any registration of case but after the raid of bailiff they alongwith their brother (Muhammad Ilyas) have been involved in the said case falsely which on the face of it is illegal. He also urged that the detention of both the detenus is illegal as there was no corresponding entry of their arrest in the Daily Diary of Police Station Multan Cantt. He has further submitted that both the detenus have been severely beaten by the police during the period of illegal detention. In the end, he forcibly submitted that Irshad Ahmad, S.I., has involved the detenus alongwith their brother in a false and concocted case as also fabricated the supplementary statement of the complainant and made arrest report in the police post deliberately while they were found in the lock-up of Police Station Multan Cantt., in order to set up a false defence before this Court.
4. I have heard the arguments advanced by both the sides, gone through the case file and have given my anxious consideration to this aspect of the case whether some action should be taken against Muhammad Irshad, S.I., for not showing the formal arrest of the detenus as required by the law. The arrest of the detenus is illegal as per the provision of Police Act, hence, I accept this petition with cost of Rs,5,000. Muhammad Irshad, S.I., is directed to deposit the amount of the cost with the D.R.(Judl.) of this Court, from whom the petitioner will receive the amount, within a week from the announcement of this order failing which it would be recovered as arrear of land revenue from him.
5. Since the arrest of the both detenus is not mentioned in the Daily Diary of Police Station Multan Cantt., where they were detained, the arrest shown by Muhammad Irshad, S.I., in the Police Post on the supplementary statement of the complainant appears to be an afterthought and in order to unduly oblige the complainant, therefore, the detenus are granted protective bail for 20 days to enable them to approach the Court of competent jurisdiction where they will submit fresh bail petition for decision on merits. This order shall ensure till 11-7-1995.
6. I also feel force in the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner with regard to severe beating of the detenus by the police officials. Both the detenus are before me, they also endorse the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner. Keeping in view the circumstances of the case, I direct M.S. Civil Hospital, Multan, to medically examine Muhammad Ilyas and Muhammad Abbas (detenus) within 3 days. The detenus are at liberty to avail any legal remedy available to them with regard to their illegal detention and severe beating by the police officials in any Court of competent jurisdiction, if they so desire.
7. With the above observations, this petition is disposed of accordingly.