' This habeas corpus petition under section 491 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of 1898, has been brought by Mrs. Inamul Haq, wife of Mr. Inamul Haq, who was working as the General Manager (Finance) of Olympia Industries (Pvt.) Ltd. 23-Davis Road, Lahore, praying inter alia, that the 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 F.I.R. No,43 of 1998 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 section 409/109/468/471/420/407/186 of the Pakistan Penal Code read with section 3/7 of the Food Act of 1977. The report lodged by the said Mian Sadaqat Ali was recorded by Muhammad Aslam Sheikh, A.F.C. (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 Mills do not use for grinding of Atta and of his being sold for ulterior authorities to other consumer like Punjab Feeds S.K.P., Lahore 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 two 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 detenu Inamul Haq is neither named in this F.I.R. Nor remotely connected or concerned with it.
4. Another case was registered vide F.I.R. No,17 of 1998 on the 18th of February, 1998, against Messrs Nazir Ahmad Afzal and others under section 409/420/468/471/109 of the Pakistan Penal Code read with section 5 of subsection (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 P.R.
(Procurement Reserve) Centre, Muridke, and seven officials of the Food Department of District Sheikhupura.
5. Once again, the petitioner's husband detenu Inamul Haq is neither named in the F.I.R. 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 detenu Inamul Haq was arrested from near the A.-G.'s Office, Lahore, in order to obtain information from him during the investigation of the aforementioned two F.I.Rs, 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, detenu 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 detenu Inamul Haq is a Manager of an Organization called "Punjab Feeds Ltd." which is factually incorrect. The petitioner's husband detenu 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 detenu Inamul Haq is not an accused person in any one out of the two 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 detenu Inamul Haq is, admittedly, an employee of a private limited Company incorporated under the Companies Ordinance of 1984 having its own legal status and entity which can sue and be sued as an independent legal person. Provisions of section 409, P.P.C.
And section 5, subsection (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, therefore, have no application as far as detenu Inamul Haq is concerned, for he is not a public servant within the meaning of either section 409, P.P.C. Or section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947. However, since a remand order was obtained on the basis of a misrepresentation, this habeas corpus petition is being converted into a petition for the grant of bail as was done by this Court in the case of Farooq Bedar v. The Inspector-General of Police, West Pakistan, Lahore reported in PLD 1969 Lah. 1020, and, the Supreme Court of Pakistan in the case of Government of Sindh v. Raeesa Farooq 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 and 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 detenu Inamul Haq, is granted bail provided he furnishes bail bond in the sum of Rs,50,000 with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court.