1. On the last date of hearing a report was filed on behalf of S.S.P., Malir in this Court which indicated that a case had been registered by the Airport Police Station against the detenu. However, the case was adjourned at the request of the learned counsel for the petitioner who had invited our attention to the case of Government of Sindh and others v. Raeesa Farooq 1994 SCM R 1283, wherein by the majority view, it was held by the Supreme Court that the High Court had jurisdiction to examine the facts and determine whether there was a prima facie case against the detenu or the case had been cooked up by the police.
2. Today, a copy of the F.I.R. Has been placed before us by the learned A.A.-G. Which indicates that a case has been registered against the detenu under section 489-B, P.P.C., for being found in possession of forged Dollar bills. It has been further alleged in the F.I.R. Lodged against the detenu that he was trying to exchange the said currency at an Exchange Counter. Mr. Iqbal Qadri while relying upon the said judgment, has argued that this Court has jurisdiction to go behind the F.I.R.
3. And determine whether the case registered against the detenu by the police was a concocted case.
4. It may be pointed out in this regard that when it is brought to the notice of the Court that either the F.I.R. Or the challan filed before the Court by the police does not disclose a prima facie case against the detenu or that the case which has been registered against the detenu by the police is false or concocted, the Court, no doubt, is vested with jurisdiction under section' 561-A, Cr.P.C. To determine such question. Such a plea can also be raised on behalf of the detenu before the trial Court under section 249-A or 265-K, Cr.P.C. The question, however, is while the Court is exercising jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution to examine the question as to the wrongful detention of the detenu, and it is shown to the Court that the detenu has been detained in connection with a case registered against him, whether the Court can also examine the question as to the existence of a prima facie case against the detenu, particularly when an adequate and efficacious remedy in this regard exists under the system provided in the Code of Criminal Procedure. The detenu has various options under such system. He can either apply for bail before the trial Court or he can apply for quashing of the proceedings, if such grounds are available to him, either before the trial Court under section 249-A or before a High Court under section 561-A, Cr.P.C. Needless to say that the jurisdiction exercised by this Court under Article 199 of the Constitution is purely discretionary and such relief may be declined by the Court in case there is an adequate remedy available to the petitioner. No doubt, in an appropriate case, the Court while hearing a petition in the nature of habeas corpus, can also examine the question, whether the case registered against the detenu is false or concocted, but the same will depend upon the circumstances of each case.
5. Consequently, since in the present case a report has been registered against the detenu which prima facie discloses commission of an offence by him and other remedies are available to the detenu under the system provided by the Criminal Procedure Code, we are not inclined to entertain this petition further. The petition is, therefore dismissed.