This is a petition filed under section 491, Criminal Procedure Code by Lai Din petitioner for the recovery of his sons Taj Din and Mukhtar Ahmed alias Baoo from the illegal and improper custody of S.H.O. Police Station Dehli Gate, Multan. A bailiff was deputed to recover the alleged detenus.
2. Liaqat A.I bailiff of this Court reached Pplice Station Dehli Gate, Multan on 31-10-1996 at 12-00 Noon. He found both the alleged detenus Taj Din and Mukhtar Ahmed alias Baoo as well as their brother Muhammad Imran alias Mithu all sons of Lal Din confined with the handcuffs/amrikans in the veranda of the aforesaid police station. In the meantime Muhammad Gulzar, S.I./S.H.O. Came there and he informed the bailiff that the aforesaid persons were arrested vide Report No.27 dated 31-10-1996 at 7-20 a.m. Under section 107/151, Criminal Procedure Code on the application dated 30-10-1991 moved by Muhammad Sharif son of Hakim A.I to the Senior Superintendent of Police and that the aforesaid persons shall be produced before the Ilaqa Magistrate on that day. The bailiff found the entry of the arrest of the above persons in the daily diary. He was handed over a copy of the Kalandra under section 107/151, Criminal Procedure Code.
3. During the proceedings conducted yesterday 3-11-1996 Report No.27 dated 31-10-1996 was gone through wherein it is narrated at the instance of Dost Muhammad, A.S.I. That Taj Din, Mukhtar Ahmad alias Baoo and Muhammad Imran alias Mithu were brought by him and that during the interrogation made by him on the application of the complainant the aforesaid three persons threatened him (complainant) when he initiated the proceedings under section 107/151, Criminal Procedure Code and made the one-sided arrest of the aforesaid three persons: During the proceedings it transpired that one Muhammad Sharif made the application before the Senior Superintendent of Police, Multan for taking the action against Tai Din, Mukhtar Ahmad alias Baoo and Muhammad Imran alias Mithu under section 506/354/355, Pakistan Penal Code with the allegation that his daughter Mst. Arshad Perveen was married to Taj Din who administered beating upon her and had turned her out of his house after snatching her ornaments. He alleged that 5 days before at 11-00 a.m. Taj Din alongwith Mukhtar Ahmad and Mithu waited for his daughter who was a school teachress and belaboured her. The P.Ws. Arrived there and his daughter was saved. It was during the inquiry of this application marked to them S.H.O. Police Station, Dehli Gate, Multan by the Senior Superintendent of Police that the aforesaid three persons were allegedly taken into custody under section 107/151, Criminal Procedure Code.
4. Yesterday (3-11-1996) in view of the direction issued by this Court Taj Din and Mukhtar Ahmed alias Mithu were not produced by the police. During .The proceedings it came to the notice of this Court that Muhammad Imran alias Mithu, a brother of the other two persons, was also arrested by- the police. I directed the police to produce the aforesaid three persons before this Court. At 9-45 a.m. Both Taj Din and Mukhtar Ahmad alias Baoo were produced while Muhammad Imran alias Mithu was not produced. In the circumstances I thought it proper that Muhammad Imran alias Mithu should also be produced and he was produced at 2-30 p.m. It was simply alarming to see that Muhammad Imran alias Mithu is aged about 12 years and was arrested by the police during the one-sided proceedings conducted under section 107/151, Criminal Procedure Code.
5. It has become a practice with the police that when an application for the registration of a case is made an inquiry is conducted even though the law does not provide the same. This method has become quite in rife and abundance and it can safely be expressed that the police has adopted this conduct to project autocratic authority. Such an investigation is not legally justified. It would be proper to refer to Muhammad Ramzan v. The Station House Officer, P.S. Jahanian and another 1985 PCr.LJ 1081 (Lahore) wherein it is ruled that the police officers cannot investigate a case without registration of the same. Sections 154/157, Criminal Procedure Code have been referred in this regard. This is an instance of such a matter where the police initiated the investigation of the case without registration of the F.I.R. This conduct of the police is illegal and unjustified.
6.Muhammad Gulzar S.I./S.H.O intimated that he marked the application. Sent by the Senior Superintendent of Police to Dost Muhammad, A.S.I. And that all the proceedings were conducted by him. He admitted that the one-sided proceedings under section 107/151, Criminal Procedure Code could not be conducted. He as well as Dost Muhammad, A.S.I. Have expressed their regrets. I have to express that the rule. Of law has to be given the paramount consideration which is being violated frequently for the last about one decade for the reasons best known to Police. In the circumstances, it can safely be expressed that Dost Muhammad, A.S.I. Transgressed the authority to pressurise the family of Lal Din petitioner as his son Taj Din alleged detenu is married to the daughter of Muhammad Sharif who made the application before the Senior Superintendent of Police. The proceedings under section 107/151, Criminal Procedure Code are held to have been conducted by Dost Muhammad, A.S.I. In an autocratic and illegal manner which are unjustified. The result is that the said proceedings are quashed forthwith. Taj Din, Mukhtar Ahmad alias Baoo and their brother Muhammad Imran alias Mithu are held to have been arrested by Dost Muhammad, A.S.I. With ulterior motive. In this view of the matter the aforesaid three real brothers sons of Lai Din petitioner are held to be the detenu's. They were released yesterday and at present they are allowed to go to the place of their own choice.
7. Pakistan is an Islamic and democratic State wherein there is a Constitution providing the honour to the citizens. The autocratic conduct of Dost Muhammad, A.S.I. Cannot be ignored and an exception must be taken thereto as held in Abdul Majid v. S.H.O. Police Station, Rohilanwali, District Muzaffargarh 1995 PCr.LJ 1209 (Lahore). My view is that it is a fit case where in Dost Muhammad, A.S.I. Must be burdened with costs to be paid as compensation to the three persons released by this Court. He is directed to pay an amount of Rs.3,000 which shall be equally shared by the three released detenus. The amount shall be brought by him on 12-12-1996 failing which not only that the amount shall be recovered from his salary he shall also be liable to penal action.