SH. RIAZ AHMAD, J.---This order shall dispose of abovementioned to petitions as they challenge the validity of the same order.
2. The petitioners seek leave to appeal against the orders dated 25-10-1995 whereby, writ petitions calling in question the detention of the petitioners were dismissed by a Division Bench of Lahore High Court at Rawelpindi.
3. The background and facts of the case are that the petitioners are citizens of Pakistan and before their arrest, they were serving in an organization at Peshawar in the capacity of Physician and Accountant respectively. It is alleged that on 11-3-1995, the petitioners were arrested by an Intelligence Agency and on the next day i.e. On 12-3-1995, the District Magistrate, Peshawar, passed an order under section 3 of the Maintenance of Public Order Ordinance, 1960 to detain the petitioners for a period of one month and were ordered to be kept in the Adiyala Central Jail, Rawalpindi. On the expiry of the initial period of one month on 12-4-1995, a Section Officer in the Ministry of Interior to the Government of Pakistan, issued an order of detention for an other period of one month which allegedly expired on 11-5-1995. It is alleged that despite the end of the detention period, the Superintendent, Adiyala Jail, Rawalpindi, instead of releasing the petitioners sought further instruction from the Ministry of Interior, whereupon, another Section Officer issued another detention order for a further period of one month with effect from 11-5-1995. On 7-6-1995 yet another order extending the period for another month was passed by a Section Officer in the Ministry of Interior to the Government of Pakistan. The detention of the petitioners was challenged through writ petitions for hearing before a learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court was informed that the detention withdrawn. It is contended that despite the withdrawal of the order, the jail authorities refused to release the petitioners and informed that the F.I.A. Authorities and the Ministry of Interior have directed them not to release the petitioners as they were foreigners and were kept in jail for being extradited. The relations of the petitioners then approached the Interior Division and the F.I.A. Authorities but all these efforts were in vain.
4. Constrained by these circumstances, the relations of the petitioners filed Writ Petitions bearing Nos.903 of 1995 and 914 of 1995 calling in question the detention of the petitioners and it was contended that the petitioners were Pakistani National and there was nothing against them. Both the petitions were accepted and the petitioners were ordered to be released vide order dated 3-8- 1995 but despite the orders of the Lahore High Court, they were not released and their custody was handed over to the F.I.A. For investigation. It then transpired that the petitioners were arrested in a case registered vide F.I.R No.8 of 1995, dated 2nd of June, 1995. The petitioners had no other course left to open but to again invoke the jurisdiction of the Lahore High Court by way of filing writ petitions which were again dismissed on the ground that the petitioners had been arrested in a case registered vide F.I.R. No.8 of 1995 dated 2-6-1995 and, therefore, the detention order was lawful and the petitioners could seek their remedy as provided to them by law.
5. Aggrieved by these circumstances, the petitioners have also invoked the jurisdiction of this Court through these petitions seeking leave to appeal. A notice was issued by this Court to the Deputy Attorney-General to apprise this Court about the nature of the detention of the petitioners. As it was contended before the High Court, it was again urged before us that the petitioners had been arrested in a case registered vide F.I.R. No.8 of 1995 dated 2-6-1995, therefore, the petitioners can approach the Court constituted under .The Suppression of Terrorist Activities Act, 1975 for the grant of bail. We called upon the Deputy Attorney-General to produce copy of the F.I.R. Which has been perused by us. Unfortunately, this F.I.R. Is based upon the direction of general nature calling upon all the authorities concerned to remain vigilant as to the subversive and terrorist activities in the country. In this F.I.R., few names have been mentioned but petitioners' names do not find mention therein. When confronted with this situation, the Deputy Attorney-General, argued that some of the accused, during investigation, disclosed that the petitioners and others had been supplying them arms which were transported to Karachi for subversive and terrorist activities. This Court further desired to know the nature of investigation and as to the collection of facts as a result of the disclosure made by some of the co-accused as to the supply of arms on the part of the accused like petitioners and others but, unfortunately, no satisfactory answer was given to us. An official from the Interior Division was also present in Court but he also failed to satisfy us as to the existence of any incriminating material against the petitioners connecting them with the supply of arms for subversive activities. The Deputy Attorney General also failed to satisfy us as to how the petitioners could be involved in a case registered vide F.I.R. No.8 of 1995 dated 2-6-1995, when the petitioners were already in the custody of the Authorities.
6. The upshot of the above discussion is that the petitioners are not being treated in accordance with law which is their fundamental right. Successive detention orders were passed against them and from March, 1995 till date, they are under detention. We have also noticed that the High Court has also dealt with this matter in a most perfunctory manner and no pains were taken to make a probe into the nature of allegations against the petitioners and no effort was made to find out material constituting the basis for detention. No effort seems to have been made to know as to the mode of investigation conducted in this case against the petitioners as a result of the disclosure by some of the co-accused that the arms were supplied by the petitioners and others.
In these circumstances; we grant leave to appeal to the petitioners and we further direct that the appeals shall be decided on the basis of present record. The parties can file any additional document if they so wish. The office is directed to fix' the appeals in the week commencing 20th of January, 1996.