MUHAMMAD ASIF JAN, J.- This habeas corpus petition under section 491 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1898, has been brought by Mrs. Inamul Haq, wife of Mr. Inamul Haq, who was working as the General Manger (Finance) of Olympia Industries (Pvt.) Ltd., 23-Davis Road, Lahore, praying inter alia, that he said Inamul Haq who is being illegally and improperly detained be brought up before this Court to be dealt with in accordance with law and set at liberty.
2. It is the case of the petitioner that her husband was illegally taken into custody and was being illegally and improperly detained by the Director, Anti-Corruption, Farid Kot House, Lahore (respondent No.1).
3. A case was registered vide FIR No. 43/98 on the 15th of January, 1998, at Police Station Saddar, District Sheikhupura, by one Mian Sadaqat Ali, President, Anjuman-e-Haqooq-e-Saarefeen, Ferozewala, District Sheikhupura, under Sections 409/109/468/471/420/407/186 of the Pakistan Penal Code read with Section 3/7 of the Food Act of 1997. The report lodged by the said Mian Sdaqat Ali was recorded by Muhammad Aslant Sheikhu AFC (Assistant Food Controller)
Sheikhupura, on the 15th of January, 1998.
On the same report, the D.C. (Deputy Commissioner) Sheikhupura, recorded the following direction on the same day:- "I have examined the enquiry report, it reveals that the wheat from pro-reserve under S.K.P. As being issued to these Flour Milla do not used for grinning of ATTA and of is being sold for ulterior authorities to other consumer like Punjab Feeds S.K.P., LHR road in these transaction local Food Department headed by D.F.C, is not exercising full vigilance over this supply of wheat to the Flour Mills S.H.O. Saddar Police Station S.K.P. Is therefore directed to register the case against the management these to Flour Mills Punjab Feeds and concerned officials of the Food Department S.K.P. The progress of investigation of the case shall be interested to me".
It is significant that the petitioner's husband date Inamul Haq is neither named in this FIR nor remotely connected or concerned with it.
4. Another case was registered vide FIR No. 17/98 on the 18th Of February, 1998, against M/s. Nazir Ahmad Afzal and others under sections 409/420/468/471/109 of the Pakistan Penal Code read with section 5 of sub section (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, by the Directorate of Food Punjab, Lahore, at the Directorate of Anti-Corruption Farid Kot House, Lahore. This report is against one Nazir Ahmad Afzal of District Sahiwal and 12 officials of the Food Department posted at PR (Procurement Reserve) Center, Muridkey, and seven officials of the Food Department of District Sheikhupura.
5. Once again, the petitioner's husband date Inamul Haq is neither named in the FIR nor is he remotely connected therewith.
According to the petitioner, her husband had not returned home since the 27th of February. 1998, and according to her explanation, he was illegally taken into custody by the officials and personnel of the Anti-Corruption Department of Lahore. Hence this habeas corpus petition.
6. Accordingly, vide order dated the 4th of March, 1998, and repeated on the 5th of March. 1998. The Director of Anti-Corruption, Farid Kot House, Lahore, (respondent No.1) was directed to produce the petitioner's husband Inamul Haq in this Court and show under what authority of law is he being detained.
7. Mr. Muhammad Ashraf tahir. Assistant director Legal, of the Anti Corruption Establishment of Punjab, Lahore, appeared in Court and stated that the petitioner's husband detenue Inamul Haq was arrested form near the A.G's Office, Lahore, in order to obtain information from him during the investigation of the afore-mentioned to FIRs On the 27th of February, 1998; and that he was produced on the next day i.e. The 28th of February, 1998. Before Mr. Muhammad Iqbal Malik. Judicial Magistrate Section 30. Lahore, who passed a remand order giving his physical custody till 3rd of March, 1998. On the 3rd of March, 1998, date Inamul Haq who was no longer required for purposes of investigation was sent to jail.
8. The remand order was passed on the representation that date Inamul Haq is a Manager of an Organization called "Punjab Feeds Ltd." which is factually incorrect. The petitioner's husband date Inamul Haq is as a matter of fact an employee of Olympia Industries (Pvt.) Ltd. Which is in the business of manufacturing carpets.
9. Stricto senso the petitioner's husband date Inamul Haq is not an accused person in any one out of the to first information reports mentioned earlier. Evidently, he was picked up in the hope of obtaining information from him which it seems did not materialize and, therefore, after the initial remand his further remand was not prayed for.
10. The petitioner's husband date Inamul Haq is admittedly an employee of a private limited Company incorporated under the Companies Ordinance of 1984 having its on legal status and entity which can sue and be sued as an -independent legal person. Provisions of section 409 PPC and section 5 sub section (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act therefore, have no application as far as date Inamul Haq is concerned, for he is not a public serv ant within the meaning of either section 409 PPC or section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947. However, since a remand order was obtained on the basis of a mis-representation, this habeas corpus petition is being convened not a petition for the grant of bail as was done by this Court in the case of Faruq Bedar v.
The Inspector General of Police, West Pakistan, Lahore reported in (PLD 1969 Lahore 1020), and the Supreme Court of Pakistan in the case of Government of Sindh v. Raeesa Faruq (1994 SCMR 1283), wherein their Lordships of the Supreme Court were pleased to hold that whenever it is brought to the notice of the High Court that there is an infringement of the fundamental an inalienable rights granted to every citizen under article 4 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 and Article 9, which provides that no person shall be deprived of life or liberty save in accordance with law and Article 10, which provides safeguards against arrest and detention, the High Court must take cognizance and pass such orders as may be just, legal and equitable, taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of each case.
11. Resultantly, the petitioner's husband detenue Inamul Haq, is granted bail provided he furnishes bail bond in the sum of Rs. 50,000/- with to sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court.