1. ' IFTIKHAR MUHAMMAD CHAUDHARY, J.--- Petitioner Syed Muhammad Ali son of Syed Ishaque, by means of instant Constitutional petition, has approached this Court with the prayer, that the detention order, dated 24th November, 1998, passed by Government of Baluchistan through Secretary, Home and Tribal Affairs Department, Civil Secretariat, Quetta, directing his detention, be declared, as has been issued without lawful authority and of no legal effect. Therefore, the respondent No,2 Deputy Commissioner, Quetta, or any other State Agency be restrained from implementing the said order, or in any manner giving effect to the same.
2. ' Precisely the petitioner's case is that on 21st October, 1998, vide F.I.R. No,109 of 1998, a case was registered under section 489-B, P.P.C. By the S.H.O., C.I.A., Sariab Circle, Quetta, mentioning therein that a group of people is indulging in forged prize bonds. After the registration of case, one Jumma Khan was arrested and from his possession six bundles of prize bonds were recovered. As per the contention of petitioner, accused Jumma Khan disclosed the name of petitioner to the police as his accomplice, therefore, he was also arrested on 22nd October, 1998. After spending stipulated period in custody, he was released on bail by the Additional Sessions Judge, vide order, dated 11th November, 1998, because no incriminating material was available on record against him. It is alleged that police then started causing harassment to his family members, on one or the other pretext and in the meanwhile an order under the Maintenance of Public Order Ordinance, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as Ordinance of 1960), was passed. Therefore, the petitioner through counsel approached the Deputy Commissioner, for supply of copy of order, but the Deputy Commissioner vide his order, dated 8th December, 1998, declined to provide him the copy of same, however, directed him to approach the Home Department for the said purpose, being the Issuing Authority of detention order. Subsequent, thereto an application was also submitted to the Secretary Home on 12th December, 1998, but he could not get the copy, therefore, ultimately on 15th December, 1998, instant Constitutional petition was filed, alongwith an application for the suspension of operation of impugned detention order.
3. ' Pre-admission notice was given to the Advocate-General, as such, on 17th December, 1998, petition was admitted for regular hearing and facility of bail was extended to petitioner, pending decision of the matter. On the said date, copy of the detention order was also supplied to the petitioner's counsel, but he was not arrested as he was admitted to bail.
4. ' Messrs Aslam Chishti, and Naeem Akhtar, Advocates, appeared on behalf of petitioner, whereas Syed Ayaz Zahoor, Deputy Attorney-General and Mr. Noor Muhammad Achakzai, Additional Advocate-General, represented the respondents.
5. ' Mr. Aslam Chishti, learned counsel argued that petitioner is being detained on account of mala fides on the part of Law Enforcement Agencies, because they failed to gather incriminating material against him in the case under section 489-B, P.P.C., registered vide F.I.R. No,109 of 1998, and thereafter, to pressurize the petitioner to enter into a compromise with the accused, involved in the said case i,e, Jumma Khan as well as with another person Ghulam Raza, against whom petitioner had lodged a criminal case of murderous attack with Kalashnikov upon him, his family members were harassed, on one pretext or the other, but when law enforcement agencies did not succeed in their illegal designs, they got issued the impugned detention order, although neither the petitioner is a criminal nor has any concern with the business of forfeited currency or prize bonds. According to learned counsel, the petitioner is a businessman, as he deals in selling and purchasing the properties and he also enjoys social/political status, being the Member of J.W.P. He further stated that the contents of the impugned order indicates that the grounds of detention, mentioned therein have no nexus with the reasons, for which, the petitioner is being detained. A perusal of impugned order would indicate that he is to be detained for interrogation purpose by the Joint Investigation Team, which is not warranted under the law. According to section 3 of the Ordinance of 1960, detention for the purpose of interrogation is not permissible, because such action contravenes to the provisions of Article 4 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, which guarantees a fundamental right to every citizen of equal protection of law. Reliance was placed by him on PLD 1969 Pesh. 50, PLD 1973 Kar. 383 and 1992 SC Cases Vol. III, p.512.
6. ' Learned Deputy Attorney-General, contended that the allegations of mala fides and harassment, mentioned in the petition, for detaining the petitioner in custody are baseless, because there is sufficient incriminating material available on record, which has been furnished by the Federal Agencies, for the detention of petitioner. A perusal whereof, suggests that the activities of petitioner are detrimental to the security and territorial integrity of Pakistan. Therefore, he has been directed with lawful authority to be detained under section 3(1) of the Ordinance of 1960. Learned Deputy Attorney-General as well as the Additional Advocate-General, placed before us the documentary evidence against the petitioner, on the basis of which, the Home Department was satisfied, to issue orders of his detention to prevent him from acting in a manner prejudicial to the public safety and maintenance of public order in Baluchistan. However, privilege was claimed by them that these documents may not be shown to other side. Reliance was placed by them on PLD 1986 Quetta 270.
7. ' We have heard the learned counsel for parties at length and also gone through the detention order. Operative portion whereof, is reproduced herein below for sake of convenience:-- "Whereas, the Government of Baluchistan is satisfied that with a view to preventing him from acting in a manner prejudicial to public safety and Maintenance of Public Order in Baluchistan, it is necessary to detain suspect Muhammad Ali Hazara, son of Syed Ishaq Hazara, resident of Mominabad, Marriabad, Quetta.
8. ' Now, therefore, in exercise of powers conferred under subsection (1) of section 3 of the Maintenance of Public Order Ordinance, 1960 the Government of Baluchistan is pleased to direct that the said Muhammad Ali Hazara, son of Syed Ishaq Hazara be detained in District Jail, Quetta for a period of 30 days with immediate effect.
9. Grounds of arrest "The above named Pakistan National has been detained in the interest of security and territorial integrity of Pakistan.
10. (Sd.)
11. Abdul Hakim Baloch, Home Secretary."
12. ' It is true that petitioner was arrested in F.I.R. No,109 of 1998 registered under section 489-B, P.P.C. At the instance of Jumma Khan, who was found to be in possession of a huge quantity of forged prize bonds and subsequently, petitioner was released on bail, for want of sufficient material, but keeping in view the privileged documents, which have been shown to us, by the State Advocates, we are inclined to hold that the Home Department has rightly been satisfied, to issue the detention order of petitioner, because without prejudice to his case before the Review Board, it appears that his activities are detrimental to the State security and territorial integrity of the country. No doubt that Detaining Authority has not mentioned in detail the grounds for the detention of petitioner, but on account of such infirmity the impugned order cannot be held illegal and contrary to the provisions of section 3 of the Ordinance of 1960. It may be noted that in the interest of national security, at times, the Authorities i,e, District Magistrate or the appropriate Government, are not bound to pass a speaking order, showing its satisfaction to detain a person. In such-like cases a summary of the activities can be considered sufficient to conclude that the satisfaction of the Authority for issuing the detention order, is based on valid material as well as reasons, even without confronting with the privileged material to the detenue, in support of the national interest, as it has been held in the case of Saadullah v. Secretary, Home Department and others PLD 1986 Quetta 270.
13. Relevant Para. Therefrom is reproduced herein below:-- "It was next contended by Mr. Iftikhar Muhammad that the Board was not given detail of the material on the basis of which it was of the view that the detention of the detenu was justified. In this regard, it may be pertinent to point out that before us the respondent has placed material but has claimed privilege on the ground of State security. Mr. Muhammad Nawaz, learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the entire material was placed before the Board but the privilege was claimed. We have gone through the material placed before us and we are of the opinion that the Board on the basis of the above material could form the view that the detention was justified.
14. We are also inclined to hold that the Board or the Court is not obliged to give the detail of the material in the opinion or order, as the case may be, if the material comprises of the nature, in respect of which State bona fidely claims privilege. Suffice to observe that the material placed before us indicates that the detenu had links with a foreign country, of which Government is hostile to Pakistan. We may also observe that in a case where State Security is involved, the Court may be reluctant to exercise Constitutional writ jurisdiction even in case of detention if the order is bona fide and is supported by the material on record though there be some infirmity in the order as to the procedure and not as to the substance."
15. ' Mr. Aslam Chishti, learned counsel, contended that because the Home Secretary, in the impugned order has not mentioned that what are those acts, from which the petitioner is required to be prevented from acting in a manner prejudicial to the public safety and maintenance of public order. Therefore, impugned order is not sufficient to detain him under section 3(1) of the Ordinance of 1960. In this behalf he heavily placed reliance on Qazi Masood Gul v. Government of West Pakistan and others PLD 1969 Pesh.
50. In this judgment, it was held that 'a reference to the grounds of detention and the order passed by the District Magistrate showed that the District Magistrate did not indicate in the impugned order that it was not being passed with a view to preventing the detent from acting in any manner prejudicial to the public safety of maintenance of public order in future and so it is obvious that it was not relatable to the objects of section 3 of the Ordinance, because it is not specifically stated therein by the detaining authority that the step was necessitated to prevent a similar performance in future, which was likely to endanger public safety, peace or maintenance of public order". In this context he also relied on PLD 1973 Kar.
383. Both these judgments were considered by this Court in Saadullah's case and on analyzing them, it was held that because the State has claimed privilege on the ground of State Security, therefore, in such case the Detaining Authority is not bound to give full details of the various acts committed by the detenu, otherwise, the object of claiming the privilege would be frustrated and it was concluded that the grounds furnished to the detenu cannot be said to be vague. Applying this test on the case in hand as well, we are inclined to follow the same dictum, because in this case too, privilege has been claimed by the learned Deputy Attorney-General and the Additional Advocate-General, for the security of nation, therefore, the contention of learned counsel for petitioner, put forth with regard to non-mentioning the detained reasons, as to why he is being detailed, itself are not sufficient to strike down the impugned order. It may be noted that in the ground it is mentioned that he is being detained in the interest of security and territorial integrity of Pakistan. Both these elements get support from the privileged documents, which have been shown to us in the Court. Therefore, we are satisfied that the Detaining Authority acting lawfully had passed the impugned order.
16. ' It was also argued by the learned counsel for petitioner that directions of the Detaining Authority for interrogation of petitioner by J.I.T. Are contrary to Article 4 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, as according to him, it means that for the time being, no sufficient material is available on record, therefore, after detention he is required to be subjected to interrogation to extract incriminating information from him and them to involve him in the case.
17. We are not inclined to agree with the contention of learned counsel, because powers of arresting/detaining and then interrogating a detent are available to the District Magistrate or any Servant of the Government under section 3(1) of the Ordinance of 1960 and such interrogation can be ordered to be conducted by the Government through any Agency, which has been set up for the purpose, including the Joint Investigation Team, comprising of member of different Law Enforcement Agencies. Thus, as the petitioner has been ordered to be dealt with under section 3(10) of the Ordinance of 1960, therefore, such action is not in violation to the provisions of Article 4 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan.
18. ' For the foregoing reasons, the petition is dismissed. Order, dated 17th D December, 1998, granting bail to petitioner Syed Muhammad Ali son of Syed Ishaque is recalled. Law Enforcement Agencies are free to take him into custody for the purpose of detention, in pursuance of order, dated 24th November, 1998 issued by the Government of Baluchistan, Home Department.
19. ' Hereinabove are the reasons of our short order of even date.