' Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that petitioners filed Writ Petition No,,25280 of 1998 in which respondents were restrained to take any coercive measures against the petitioners for their ejectment till the said date i,e, 18-12-1998, vide order dated 9-12-1998. The case was fixed on 18-12-1998 but the order-sheet reveals that no order was passed and the petitioner was constrained by the circumstances to file C.M., No,,1 of 1999 in which the respondeilits were restrained to take any action against the petitioner till 8-2-1999. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that public functionaries are against the petitioners and wanted to dispossess them from the building qua the petitioners have filed the aforesaid writ petition without adopting the legal process. Therefore, under the directions of the public functionaries F.I.R. No,,22 was registered against the petitioners and their co-accused on 27-1-1999. He further stated that other co-accused were arrested from the spot but the petitioners slipped away from the place of occurrence. He further states that the contents of the F.I.R. Reveal that the petitioners were not armed with any weapon. Therefore, the question that the petitioners slipped away is not based on reality. He further, stated that the F.I.R. Was lodged under the directions of the public functionaries against the petitioners.
2. The learned State Counsel contended that the petitioners are involved in the case specifically with specific allegation and, therefore, the petitioners are not entitled to any concession of bail.
When the learned State Counsel is confronted with the detailed order passed by this Court on 28-1- 1998 vide which the ad interim bail was granted to the petitioners, she perused the record of the police. The Investigating Officer did not bring on record any cogent evidence to connect the petitioners with the commission of offence.
3. I have given my anxious consideration to the contentions of the learned counsel of the parties.
The only allegation. Against the petitioners is that the petitioners are instigating the public against the Prime Minister and the Government for the purpose of obtaining proprietary rights qua the building in which petitioners and others are residing since 1947. It is pertinent to mention here that petitioners _have filed Writ Petition No,,25280 of 1998 in which petitioners have filed affidavit of Kh.
Raiz Mehmood, Chairman, Complaint Cell of the Prime Minister, in favour of the petitioners. In case the contents of the F.I.R. And the affidavit in the aforesaid writ petition of Kh. Riaz Mehmood is put in juxta-position then it is crystal clear that the contents of the F.I.R. Are not based on the true facts. It is not believable that the Chairman of the complaint cell of the Prime Minister is supporting the case of the petitioners and A the petitioners are agitating against the Chief Executive of the country. It is red tapism of bureaucratic attitude to involve the innocent people in such frivolous cases. I am afraid that the Investigating Officer did not investigate the case honestly, fairly and justly. Mere reading of the contents of the F.I.R. Do not reveal any cognizable offence but the Investigating Officer is behind the poor petitioners. It is the duty and obligation of the police not only to collect the evidence for the purpose of connecting the accused persons mentioned in the F.I.R. With the commission of offence but it is also the duty of the police to collect the evidence to save the innocent persons from the agony of investigation and trial. The F.I.R. Was recorded on 27- 1-1999 but the Investigating Officer did not bring on record any cogent evidence to show his bona fide that he is investigating the matter honestly, fairly and justly. It is the primary duty by virtue of Article 4 of the Constitution read with section 154, Cr.P.C., Police Act and Police Rules framed thereunder. This Court has determined the duties and obligation of the police in Abdul Latif's case.
The judgment of this Court is binding on each and every organ of the State by virtue of Article 201 of the , Constitution. The action of the Investigating Officer is in derogation of the c judgment of this Court. Our Constitution is based on tracheotomy as the principle laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court in Zia-ur-Rehman's case PLD 1973 SC 49 and Mian Muhammad Nawaz Sharif's case PLD 1993 SC 473. In trychotomy it is the duty of the Investigating Officer and the police agency to investigate the matter without fear, favour and nepotism. Even the Chief Executive of the country is bound to act within 'the frame work of law and the 1 Constitution as the principle laid down in Ch. Zahoor Elahi's case PLD 1975 SC C 383. The case of the petitioner is of further inquiry.
4. In view of what has been discussed above the interim bail already granted by this Court to the petitioners vide order dated 28-1-1999 is hereby ID confirmed.