' Brief facts of the instant petition are that the husband of the petitioner being an old man of about 65 years of age was detained for two months vide detention order, dated 25-4-1997 passed by the learned District Magistrate, Sahiwal. This detention order is challenged through this writ petition being based on mala fides, illegal without jurisdiction as an outcome of inimical terms of the detainee with one Rana Nisar Ahmad a relative of the D.I.-G. Of Police, Faisalabad.
2. The reasons advanced in the detention order are that some cases were registered against the husband of the petitioner for cattle lifting, which, according to the petitioner, were completely fake and baseless as these were registered at the instance of Rana Nisar Ahmad and others and were found false in the judicial inquiry conducted by the Magistrate but despite of the judicial inquiry the police did not cancel the F.I.Rs, and thereafter, W.P. No,6182 of 1995 was filed and this Court stayed the proceedings of these alleged false cases and that there is nothing on record to justify petitioner's husband detention being a potential threat to the public safety and good order.
Therefore, the detention order was liable to be set aside being without lawful authority, justification and jurisdiction. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed on record copy of order, dated 2-5- 1997 passed in W.P. No,3052 of 1997 (Sikandar Hayat v. District Magistrate etc.) whereon the same lines the detention order issued by the District Magistrate under section 3(1) of the Maintenance of Public Order Ordinance, 1960 was set aside by this Court in view of Liaquat Ali v. Government of Sindh PLD 1973 Kar. And 344 and Abdul Hameed v. District Magistrate Larkana and v. District Magistrate, Rahimyar Khan PLD 1996 Lah.
342.
3. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the detention order which follows as such:-- "(1) That you are an active anti-social element and notorious cattle lifter/Rassa Geer and proceeded against in cases under section 379/380/411, P.P.C. And you are a police record-holder and frequently indulge in anti-social activities prejudicial to good order.
(2) That you have potential to create law and order situation at the cost of public peace and good order.
(3) Despite registration of criminal cases against you, details of which are given in the list, you have not given up your nefarious activities, which are a real threat to public safety."
' Petitioner has placed on record copy of order, dated 4-10-1995 passed in Writ Petition No,6182 of 1995 where further investigation with the police was stayed.
4. Humayun detainee gave an application for judicial inquiry to the Additional Deputy Commissioner, Sahiwal in the following cases which were registered against him for cattle lifting:-- ' F.I.R. No,252 of 1986; F.I.R. No, 253 of 1986; F.I.R. No, 254 of 1986; F.I.R. No, 256 of 1986; F.I.R. No, 257 of 1986; F.I.R. No,258 of 1986; F.I.R. No, 259 of 1986; F.I.R. No, 260 of 1986; F.I.R. No,261 of 1986; F.I.R. No, 262 of 1986; F.I.R. No, 263 of 1986; F.I.R. No, 264 of 1986; F.I.R. No, 269 of 1986; F.I.R. No, 270 of 1986; F.I.R. No, 272 of 1986; F.I.R. No, 273 of 1986; F.I.R. No,274 of 1986; F.I.R. No, 275 of 1986; F.I.R. No, 278 of 1986; F.I.R. No,279 of 1986; F.I.R. No, 280 of 1986; F.I.R. No, 281 of 1986; F.I.R. No, 282 of 1986; F.I.R. No, 283 of 1986; F.I.R. No, 286 of 1986; F.I.R. No, 287 of 1986; F.I.R. No, 288 of 1986, F.I.R. No,289 of 1986.
' The Magistrate/Enquiry Officer, Sahiwal vide report, dated 26-3-1989 held that the subject property i,e, cattle belonged to Humayun (detenu). Ft also disclosed that in cases F.I.Rs, Nos.253, 257 and 264 of 1986 complainants Hashmat Ali son of Basara, Ahmad son of Basara and Aish son of Khula have taken injunctions from the Civil Court and in case F.I.Rs, Nos.262 of 1986, 256 of 1986, 259 of 1986 and 273 of 1986, the cattles are not returned to the complainants/Superdaran. It has also disclosed that on 15-10-1986, the police of Police Station Burjwala under section 550, Cr.P.C.
Has taken into custody 55 cattles from the custody of Humayun and later on 27 cases were registered and in 16 cases cattles were given to the petitioner's husband on Superdari. The conclusion of this detailed inquiry is that prima facie cattles belonged to the detainee.
5. Learned A.A.-G. Has offered that if the petitioner's husband files security for good conduct he can be released from jail. One month of detention period has already expired the detention order on its face does not disclose any material which is relatable to the object of detention and discloses an act prejudicial to public order and to affect the public at large.
6. The aforesaid cases are registered against the detainee, they were subject of judicial inquiry which was concluded in favour of the detainee and this matter about the investigation is subjudice in this Court in Writ Petition No,6182 of 1995. The petitioner has placed on record copy of Writ Petition No,1026 of 1988, which was also a detention order and was later on withdrawn by the learned A.A.- G. On 2-8-1988. The nature and the judicial inquiry about the cases does disclose that there is some conflict or enmity prevailing between the detainee and the other locals and the police. The liberty and freedom of a citizen is very precious. There must be reasonableness of the order curtailing this liberty and freedom as the dignity of common man is to be preserved by the Court.
The detaining authority was under a duty of law to keep the list of registered cases and also the detailed judicial inquiry in respect of all the registered cases conducted by a competent authority which concluded the same in favour of the detainee. It is not necessary that registration of bulk of criminal cases against an individual will justify a detention order passed by the District Magistrate.
The registration of cases against an individual for detention under section 3(1) of the Maintenance of Public Order Ordinance must furnish rather reflect material available to prove that action of such an individual is prejudicial to public order and safety as every citizen has an access to law. Any case registered against an individual gives him a right to defend the same. From the perusal of the record it seems that detainee is successfully defending the same.
7. Therefore, the instant writ petition is allowed; the ground shown in the detention order being not sufficient and substantiating the detention of the detainee is hereby set aside. The detainee be released forthwith if he is not required any more in any other case.