' Muhammad Anwar son of Muhammad Siddique has brought the instant petition stating that his son Muhammad Sher and Abdul Hameed are in illegal detention of the respondents who happened to be the Incharge of Police Station City, Nankana, District Sheikhupura. After the Court was assured that there was no criminal case pending against the detenus, bailiff was deputed to recover the detenus and produced them in Court on 21st March, 2001. On the said date another Honourable Judge who was seized of the case observed after going through the report of the bailiff Munawar Cheema, Assistant Commissioner, Sheikhupura was present at the police station when the bailiff raided the premises and he alongwith S.H.O. Used filthy language with the bailiff who was not allowed to search the police station in the presence of the petitioner. Notice was issued to the Assistant Commissioner and the S.H.O. To appear and file their reply. On 26th of March, 2001, learned counsel for the petitioner brought to the notice of the Court that detenus Muhammad Sher and Abdul Hameed were not available within the precincts of the police station and are in custody of the S.H.O., who sought time to file reply. Honourable Judge did not like to hear the case for personal reasons, therefore, the matter was transferred to my Court on the orders of my Lord the Honourable Chief Justice. On 10th of April, 2001, A.C. Nankana, District Sheikhupura could not attend this Court as he was busy in receiving the Yatrees in connection with Baisakhi Festival held at the Gurdawara to the Nankana Sahib. S.H.O. Appeared and stated that the detenus are neither detained by him nor he knows about their whereabouts. He was directed to appear, on 13th of April, 2001 alongwith Assistant Commissioner and make every efforts to find out the whereabouts of the detenus.
2. Today the S.H.O. Has repeated that the detenus are not in his custody. Learned counsel for the petitioner requests that he would make a fresh petition after ascertaining the address where the detenus are kept either by the S.H.O. Or at his behest by someone else. So far as the detention matter is concerned, this petition is dismissed.
3. The report of the bailiff in original which is part of this Court's file indicates that when he visited the police station on 20th of March, 2001 at 6-55 p.m. He contacted Muhammad Tariq, Moharrir and after introduction he took the Daily Diary in his custody and started search of the detenus in the company of the petitioner who had to identify the detenus, when all of a sudden S.H.O., City Nankana alongwith A.C. Nankana. Came out from the office of the S.H.O. And inquired from the bailiff about his presence in the .Police station whereafter the bailiff not only introduced himself but showed the orders of this Court to the Assistant Commissioner and the S.H.O., both of whom made utterances which had the effect of creating hinderances in the way of the bailiff to carry out the orders of the Court. The bailiff has produced the exact words uttered by the Assistant Commissioner, Nankana Sahib which are once against reproduced:- {{URDU TEXT}}
4. Abrar Shahid, S.-I. S.H.O. Uttered the following' words in vernacular:-- {{URDU TEXT}}
5. It is stated that a person entered in the police station and talked to the Assistant Commissioner who accompanied him from the Police Station City, Nankana Sahib in a Car bearing Registration No,IDF-7246 which is green registration plate. S.H.O. Allowed him to search the premises to locate the alleged detenus but remarked that "I shall see you after disposal of habeas corpus petition".
Bailiff further staled in the report that although Abrar Shahid, S.H.O. Did not give him any information about the detenus, however, Moharrir apprised him that neither the alleged detenus were arrested nor required by the police in any case and no one knows about their whereabouts.
The record having been checked did not lead to any clue about the whereabouts of the detenus.
The bailiff in the penultimate para. Of his report stated that the interruption of the Assistant Commissioner, Nankana Sahib, S.H.O. And the gathering of the police officials created a doubt that police removed the detenus from the Police Station City, Nankana Sahib because the petitioner was firm in his assertion that police took the custody of the detenus in the morning of 20th of March, 2001.
6. Assistant Commissioner, Nankana Sahib appeared today and when he was confronted with the remarks reproduced by the bailiff in his report, he denied. To a Court query whether the bailiff had any rancour with the A.C. The reply was in the negative. Same was the reply of the S.H.O. Regarding his remarks which he allegedly uttered to the bailiff. On the other hand, the bailiff of the Court when questioned was stable and firm in his reply and stated voluntarily that what he has written in his report is nothing but the whole truth.
7. Prima facie I am satisfied that the Assistant Commissioner, Nankana Sahib and S.H.O. Police Station City, Nankana Sahib have created hindrances in the discharge of duty of the bailiff, who is a Court representative, and as such made themselves liable for proceedings under sections 3 and 4 of the Contempt of Court Act, 1976. Office shall issue notices to Munawar Hussain Cheema, Assistant Commissioner, Nankana Sahib and Abrar Shahid, S.-I./ S.H.O. Police Station City, Nankana Sahib for 29th of May, 2001 to show cause as to why they should not be punished for having committed the contempt of Court by creating hindrances and using uncalled for language against the bailiff of this Court when he was present in the Police Station City, Nankana Sahib in discharge of his duty.
Show-cause notices issued.