1. SALAHUDDIN AHMED, J.----This Rule nisi is directed against an .Order purported to have been passed under Rule 32 of the Defence of Pakistan Rules, 1965 dated 10th May 1967 as per Annexure 'A' .Detaining the petitioner's brother Mohabbat Hossain Jamadar until further orders.
2. The detenu, aged about 35 years, is a farmer by occupation, and owns about 8 bighas of land In addition he obtained 200 bighas of Char land of Mouza Udainagar by settlement from the Tahshildar's Office in February/March 1967 and cultivated the lands along with his brother the petitioner. It has been asserted -that the detenu never took part in any political activity, and was never convicted in any criminal case. On the 16th May 1967, while the detenu was sleeping at his residence at night, the police came in the early hours of the morning and took him first to Daulatpur Police Station and then to Kushtia Central Jail. He -was then taken to Jessore Central Jail and has been kept there since then. On the 17th May 1967, while at Kushtia Central Jail, he was handed over the impugned order of the Deputy Commissioner, Kushtia, dated 10th May 1967 ordering his detention until further orders. It has been stated that the detenu and his brother are both illiterate persons, and they hoped that the detenu would soon be released. As their hopes did not come out true, the petitioner took the order of detention from the detenu sometime in August 1967 and thereafter approached this Court and obtained the present Rule nisi. The petitioner has expressed an apprehension that the detenu has fallen a victim to the personal annoyance of certain influential local people due to the fact that he succeeded in obtaining settlement of the aforesaid 200 bighas of Char lands from the Government. There were other people interested in obtaining settlement of the aforesaid lands and they might have been responsible for falsely implicating the detenu in a proceeding under the Defence of Pakistan Rules. It is asserted that the order of detention has been passed without the requisite satisfaction of the detaining authority.
3. On behalf of respondents Nos. 1 and 2, namely, the Government of East Pakistan and the Deputy Commissioner, Kushtia an affidavit-in-opposition sworn by the Deputy Commissioner, Kushtia, has been put in. Besides a general statement that as the detenu had been indulging in activities which were likely to act in a manner prejudicial to the public safety and maintenance of essential supplies and services in the country, he A vas detained. In paragraph 10 of the affidavit it has been stated that the detenu was a vetern smuggler of Ghilmari border under Daulatpur Police Station.
4. The detaining authority considered a secret report that a notorious smuggler named, Kancha of Ishurdi Town, District Pabna used to purchase smuggled goods from the smugglers, namely, Bidi leaves small cardamoms for sale, and that the man who used to bring those smuggled goods from the border area was the detenu, Mohabbat Hossain Jamadar.
5. Having perused the affidavits of the respective parties we asked Mr. M. Nurullah, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the State to place before us the materials, which furnished the: basis for the satisfaction of the detaining authority. The materials have since been placed before us and we have carefully examined them. It appears from a report sent by the Officer-in---Charge, Daulatpur Police Station to the Superintendent of Police,. D. S. B. Kushtia that the detenu, who was a special constable until 28th February 1967, along with 4 others had gone to India: and smuggled Indian tendu leaves through Charghat P.S. The E. P. R. Personnel had arrested them with the tendu leaves but later set them at liberty and the tendu leaves were seized as unclaimed. The Superintendent of Police wrote the following note on the margin of the report "O. C. Daulatpur P. S. May be asked to secure arrest of the smuggler red-handed while they are on operation."
6. It is, therefore, evident that the materials placed before us are inconsistent with the allegations made against the detenu in paragraph 10 of the affidavit-in-opposition. The records show that the dentenu was concerned in one solitary case of smuggling f Indian tendu leaves, and as presumably there was nothing against him, he was released by the E. P. R. Personnel. Since then there is nothing to show that the detenu was concerned in smuggling or any other objectionable activity. Obviously the Superintendent of Police, D. S. B., Kushtia too, considered this to be a solitary case of smuggling and he, therefore, asked the officer-in-charge to arrest the smugglers red- handed while they were in operation. It does not appear either from the affidavit-in-opposition or from the records placed before us that any action was taken against the 4 other alleged smugglers mentioned in the aforesaid report of the Superintendent of Police.
7. We accordingly make the Rule absolute and declare that the impugned order of detention dated 10-5-1967 has been made without any lawful authority and is of no legal effect. We direct G that the detenu, Mohabbat Hossain Jamadar be released from detention forthwith.
8. A. MOUDUD, J.---I agree.