' Rehmat Gul filed Criminal Miscellaneous No,178/H of 2000 against S.H.O. Police Station Injra, Tehsil Jand, District Attock for recovery of his son Tariq Mehmood confined in police station since 9-12- 2000.
2. Bailiff was deputed on 14-12-2000 to recover and produce the detenu in Court on 15--12-2000.
Waris Khan bailiff reached the police station at 8-10 p.m. Alongwith Rehmat Gul petitioner.
Nawazish Ali, NaibMoharrar of Police Station on his introduction handed over Roznamcha to him.
Bailiff started search of the detenu who was found detained in Hawalat. Police pushed out Rehmat Gul petitioner from police station under the pretext that no civil person can enter in the premises at this time. Bailiff was taken forcibly by the S.H.O. And other officials in the room of S.H.O. And bolted it from inside, snatched Roznamcha from him. Bailiff resented over taking of Roznamcha from him forcibly whereupon the S.H.O. Told him that he was doing so under compulsion. After ten minutes S.H.O. Told the bailiff that he has arrested the detenu today and his arrest is shown in Roznamcha.
On checking of Roznamcha it was so found in Rapat No,7, dated 14-12-2000 at 4-00 p.m. In Case F.I.R. No,82 dated 7-11-2000 under sections 457/380, P.P.C. Arrested under section 54, Cr.P.C. Copy of the said Rapat is attached with the report of the Bailiff. S.H.O. Was served with the notice with a direction to produce the detenu alongwith record in the Court.
3. On receipt of the report of the bailiff and perusal of the record produced by the S.H.O. The detenu was set at liberty as he was arrested on the basis of suspicion in afore-referred case in which he was not named by the complainant vide order, dated 15-12-2000. At the same time S.H.O. Was directed to submit reply to the petition and the report of the bailiff and the case was adjourned for 18-12-2000. He did not submit any reply and a show-cause notice was issued to him that why he should not be proceeded against for having committed contempt of Court, wrongful confinement of the bailiff and interference in judicial process and separate file was opened against him and case was adjourned for 20-12-2000.. On this date respondent Sohail Usmani S.H.O. Has not submitted reply to the application and the report of the bailiff. His counsel did not appear although the case was kept in waiting till late hours. Statement of Waris Khan bailiff was recorded and the case was adjourned for today. Respondent has appeared in person and stated that he does not want to produce any evidence in defence and throws himself at the mercy of the Court. He has also filed the application for seeking pardon and apology.
4. Raja Saeed Akram, learned Assistant Advocate-General has assisted this Court for proceeding against the S.H.O. Under contempt of Court Act. He submits that the accused misbehaved with the bailiff, detained him forcibly in room known well that he was deputed by the Court to effect recovery of Tariq Mehmood detenu, while keeping bailiff in wrongful confinement, Roznamcha was taken away from him and entry to show the arrest of Tariq Mehmood was made and thereafter the room was unbolted. The daily diary register was shown to the bailiff indicating his arrest. This entry was maneuvered by the S.H.O. During this period. The detenu was detained in police station since 9-12-2000, five days earlier to the conducting of raid. Detenu is not named in F.I.R. No,82. His arrest was made under section 54, Cr.P.C. To justify the detention. The conduct of respondentS.H.O.
Amounts to severe contempt of Court. He misbehaved with the bailiff, kept him in wrongful confinement for ten minutes, took forcibly Roznamcha from him which amounts to interference in the judicial process, therefore, he is liable to be convicted under contempt of Court Act and relied upon The State v. Muhammad Rafique and others 1989 PCr.LJ 1708.
5. I have heard the learned Assistant Advocate-General at length, perused the relevant record and the judgment cited by him. The bailiff introduced to the S.H.O. That he has conducted the raid pursuance to the order of this Court for recovery of Tariq Mehmood detenu. He showed his identity card also. Bailiff took Roznamcha in his custody and found detenu detained in Hawalat. S.H.O. With the help of other officials took bailiff to his room and bolted it from inside, Roznamcha was snatched from him and entrusted to some other official for incorporation of the entry of arrest of the detenu. Despite protest of the bailiff not to misbehave with him needful entry was made and thereafter room was unbolted and the Roznamcha was returned to bailiff. Bailiff deposed on oath before this Court on 20-12-2000 and has testified his report. S.H.O. Put a few questions to him but has not refuted the allegations made in the report of bailiff. He has not submitted any reply to the habeas petition as well as the report of the bailiff. He has not produced any defence evidence in rebuttal of statement of the bailiff.
6. In the light of the statement of the bailiff, his report and habeas petition of Rehmat Gul it is established that Tariq Mehmood detenu was detained in police station since 9-12-2000. When the bailiff conducted raid on 14-12-2000 at night till then detenu's arrest was not recorded anywhere.
S.H.O. Apprehending that wrongful detention of the detenu shall be discovered immediately took bailiff in a room, bolted it from inside, arranged the entry of arrest of the detenu in the Roznamcha by snatching it from the bailiff. The conduct of the S.H.O. Amounts to interference in the performance of the duties of the bailiff under the order of this Court. He has shown disregard and disrespect to the order of this Court in causing obstruction in process of law and frustrate the order of Court. The conduct of respondent is clearly contemptuous and obstruction to process of law. In similar circumstances this Court in case of the State v. Muhammad Rafique and others referred by the learned Assistant Advocate-General found the accused guilty of contempt of Court and was sentenced to six months' R.I. And a fine of Rs,5,000, in default, one months' S.I. Each. The aforesaid case is applicable to the facts of the present case. Respondent has not contested the allegations made against him and tendered unconditional apology and threw himself at the mercy of the Court, but this apology is too late. He has not done so on first date, therefore, it cannot be accepted at this stage. He has also not caused any physical violence to the bailiff. His role comparatively is lesser than the afore-referred case. Unrebutted evidence on record fully established guilt of the respondent, therefore, he is convicted for contempt of Court and sentenced to four months' R.I. And fine of Rs,5,000, in default of payment of fine, one months' S.I. In case the fine is recovered that shall be paid to Waris Khan, Bailiff. Respondent has been taken into custody and sent to jail to serve the sentence.