This is a petition under sections 491 and 561-A, Cr.P.C. Filed by the brother of detenu Saeed Ahmed son of Sardar Ahmed Sultan Chandio (hereinafter referred to as the detenu) alleging therein that the detenu was first arrested on 9-4-1995 and detained under section 3(1) of the Sindh -- Maintenance of Public Order Ordinance, 1960 and thereafter from time to time was kept in different, police stations. This detention order is very material for the determination of this petition, as such its relevant portions are reproduced as hereunder: "That Saeed Ahmed son of Nawab Ahmed Sultan Chandio resident of Wakeelo Colony Banglow No.A-LB Larkana has been detained for 30 days under M.P.O. Vide Order No.J/210 dated 9-4-1995 on the following grounds:--
1. That he is patronizing :the criminals and has been acting as intermediary in abduction for ransom cases.
2. That he is using his position of influence in the area, extracts information from the subordinate functionaries and passes same to the criminals and thus, abets their criminal activities.
That if remains at large, there is likelihood that he would continue his detrimental and nefarious activities and would create law and order situation. As such his activities are prejudicial to public peace, tranquillity and good order..."
2. Against the above said order the detenu' filed Constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution, 1973 which came up for regular hearing before a Division Bench of this Court, when on 3-5-1995, the petition was disposed of as not pressed, in view of the statement which was made at the Bar on behalf of respondents that the period of detention will not be extended beyond 30 days period. But after expiry of the detention period on 8-5-19--5, the detenu was again involved in the case under section 14 of the Sindh Crimes Control Act, 1975, before the Tribunal SDM, Qamber. The detenu preferred a quashment proceedings under section 561-A, Cr.P.C. Before this Court which was numbered as Criminal Miscellaneous Appeal No. 75 of 1995 and on 16-5-1995 the detenu was ordered to be released on bail upon furnishing surety of Rs.50,000. Despite furnishing of surety the detenu was not released and this time he was shown to be arrested under section 110, Cr.P.C. A revision application was filed before the Sessions Judge at Larkana who admitted the detenu to bail. It is vehemently urged by the learned counsel for the applicant that the detenu was not released and was again arrested from the gate of the Larkana Jail by the S.S.P. Jacobabad who took the custody of the detenu towards Punhoon Bhatti Police Station. Thereafter, petitioner approached this Court through the instant petition under section 491, Cr.P.C. With the following prayers:-- "(a) To order S.S.P. Jacobabad to produce the detenu Saeed Ahmed Chandio before this Hon'ble Court and place on record the reasons of his detention or arrest.
(b) To order his release.
(c) To order respondents not to arrest or detain Saeed Ahmed Chandio in any case except with the permission of this Hon'ble Court.
(d) This Hon'ble Court may take action against the respondents if deemed fit and proper.
(e) Grant the victim any other relief which this Hon'ble Court deems proper in circumstances of the case ...."
3. On 6-6-1995 this Court issued order for production of detenu and in compliance of which the custody of detenu is produced today. S.H.O. Police Station Moula Dad has filed his statement disclosing therein that the detenu was arrested on 1-6-1995 in Crime No.26 of 1995 dated 25-4-1995 under sections 342, 353, 147,148,149 and 336, P.P.C. On a question from the Court the said S.H.O.
Admitted that the detenu has not been named in this F.I.R. Nor there is any description of identity of the detenu in this F.I.R. The date of incident as alleged in the F.I.R. Is 25-4-1995 at about 10-45 a.m.
He has further stated that detenu was produced before the First Class Magistrate, Jacobabad who has remanded the detenu to police custody till 12-6-1995. The detenu Saeed Ahmed was also examined who has supported the facts of the petition as well as of the telegram dated 24-5-1995 which is filed as Annexure ' D' with the petition. According to the statement of the detenu on 24-5- 1995 after his release from the Larkana Jail he was again re--arrested by Police officials and was taken to Dodapur Police lock-up; that he was being shifted from one police station to another police station and was never produced before any Magistrate. The S.H.O. Mouladad has brought with him police file of the Crime No. 26 of 1995 which was examined by me, in presence and with assistance of both the learned counsel. So far none of the witness is examined under section 161, Cr.P.C. Despite the fact that today is the twelfth day of detention of the detenu with this police station. There is remand order available on the police file which shows that the remand is expiring today, i.e. 12-6-1995. Interestingly, there is no memo of arrest available in the police file to suggest the exact date of arrest of detenu by this police station. The said S.H.O. In presence of the State counsel has candidly stated that the detenu is no more required by him which statement is brought on record.
4. In the previous Constitutional Petition (D-82/95) which was disposed of by this Court on 3-5- 1995, it was claimed by the detenu that was arrested on 9th April, 1995 under the Sindh Maintenance of Public Order Ordinance, 1960, which fact was not denied by the respondents in that petition which amounts to admission. According to the detention order dated 9-4-1995 the detenu would have been released on 8-5-1995, therefore, the allegation of involvement of detenu in the commission of the offence as alleged in the F.I.R. Dated 25-4-1995, when he was admittedly with the custody under M.P.O. Confined at District Jail, Larkana is highly doubtful. In the circumstances, as narrated hereinabove, the detention of detenu with Police Station Mouladad does not appear to be legal and proper. On the query from this Court about 'what material so far the Investigating Officer has collected against the detenu to which it was stated that so far no evidence connecting the detenu in the alleged offence was received. It appears from the abovementioned facts that the detenu was arrested in the blind F.I.R. Without having any material against him to connect him in any offence. Such practice is now-a-days very common in this country and being prectised by the police authorities to oblige their high-ups or under some political pressure. This question was considered in the case of Muhammad Siddique v. Province of Sindh (PLD 1992 Karachi 358), when this Court noticed the practice of arresting innocent persons in blind F.I.Rs. And made the following observation: "Before concluding we would like to place on record that the conduct of Police Officers in the above cases was found to be most disappointing. The repeated arrest and release of persons in 'Blind F.I.Rs.' without collecting material showing their reasonable connection with the cases, could hardly be treated as bona fide act of police officer in exercise of lawful authority vested in them by late We have already highlighted the consequence of such action on the part of Police in the case of Rabia Begum v Government of Sindh and others C.P. No.D-375 of 1991 and it is not necessary to repeat them here.
It must be remembered that Police and Magistracy play vital part at initial stages of administration of justice. In case these agencies fail to perform their duties in strict compliance of law people may lose faith in them. This will not only create a serious set back in the process of administration of justice but will also adversely affect the establishment of rule of law in the country. "
5. It has not been denied that the detenu namely Saeed Ahmad son of Sardar Ahmed Sultan Chandio is in confinement since 9-4-1995 in different proceedings. According to the statement filed by S.H.O. Mouladad he is no more required in any other crime/case except F.I.R. No.26 of 1995 about which I have already observed earlier that the detention of detenu in the said case is illegal and mala fide. I am fortified in my view by the case-law reported as Master Abdul Rasheed v.
S.M.L.A. Rawalpindi (PLD 1980 Lahore 356) and Raja Zar Khan v. Registrar Cooperative Society Muzaffarabad and another (1989 P.Cr.LJ 218).
6. In view of the abovementioned facts and the law, I am of the considered opinion that the present detention of detenu Saeed Ahmed with Police Station, Mouladad, District Jacobabad is illegal and mala fide and in view of the statement of S.H.O. That detenu is no more required, he is directed to be set at liberty upon furnishing personal bond. Petition under section 491, read with section 561-A, Cr.P.C. Is allowed with no order as to costs. Rule Nisi issued earlier and now duly complied with is hereby recalled.