' Briefly, the facts of the case are that parents of detenu secured loan from respondent-Bank on various dates commencing from the years 986 to 1989 for the purchase of tractor and other agricultural equipments. The parents of the detenu executed agreement with the respondent- Bank. According to the terms of the agreement the parents of the detenu had to repay the loan to the respondent-Bank in easy instalments. The parents of detenu failed to repay the loan to the respondent-Bank. Respondents Nos.1 and 2 initiated proceedings for the recovery of outstanding from the parents of detenu amounting to Rs,9.50,000. The respondents got security on simple paper from the detenu on 1-3-2001, the detenu was detained by the respondents on 24-4-2001.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that detenu was not surety or guarantor at the time of securing loan from the respondents by the parents of the detenu; that detenu is teenager and the action of the respondents is without lawful authority, that respondent No,1 has no authority whatsoever under the provisions of the Punjab Agricultural Development Ordinance, 1961; that respondents had arrested the detenu mala fide under the direction of their superiors that allegedly guarantee of the detenu is not sustainable in the eyes of law as the detenu did not own any property in his name.
3. The learned Additional Advocate-General submits that detenu was detailed by the respondents after completing all the legal formalities. He further submits that action of respondents is in accordance with law, that detenu voluntarily executed surety for repayment of the loan to the respondents.
4. I have given my anxious consideration to the contentions of learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. It is settled principle of law that public functionaries are duty-bound to act in accordance with law as is envisaged by Article 4 of the Constitution. It is admitted position that detenu was not surety or guarantor of his parents at the time of sanctioning the loan by the respondents in favour of his parents. It appears that subsequently on account of pressure to arrest the parents of the detenu got surety from him on 1-3-2001. It is settled proposition of law that any contract which is under undue influence, pressure is not sustainable in the eyes of law coupled with the fact that there is no property in the name of the detenu at all. This fact brings the case in the area that the action of respondents is without lawful authority as the so-called surety obtained from the detenu is by force and without verifying the fact that the detenu did not own any land in his name. It is also admitted fact that age of the detenu is under teenage. Keeping in view all the circumstances, I accept this petition and respondents are directed to set at liberty the detenu immediately.