' Brief facts out of which present writ petition arises are that Muhammad Mushtaq secured loan from the respondents-Bank. An agreement was also executed between the original loanee and respondents-Bank. The respondents initiated proceedings against the original loanee. The detenu Naveed Musthaq has given undertaking that he will repay the loan of his father and executed Zamanatnama in favour of respondent-Bank on 20-11-2001. Respondents arrested the detenu Naveed. Mushtaq and sent him in the judicial lockup. The respondents, allegedly arrested the original loanee Muhammad Mushtaq and kept him in their custody in private jail. The petitioner being aggrieved filed this writ petition.
2. The learned counsel of the petitioner submits that action of the respondents is without lawful authority. He further submits that Naveed Musthaq has not given any surety/guarantee at the time of sanctioning of the loan in favour of his father Muhammad Mushtaq. He further submits that the respondents detained Naveed Mushtaq and Muhammad Mushtaq without any justification in violation of mandatory provision of law.
3. Learned legal advisor of the respondents entered appearance alongwith Manager, he has stated that the respondents did not arrest Muhammad Mushtaq, the original loanee. Naveed Mushtaq was arrested after completing all the legal formalities and detained him in judicial lock-up. The original loanee had repaid all the outstanding of the respondents-Bank. The competent Authority had sent robkar for the release of Naveed Mushtaq on 20-2-2002. He further submits under instructions that the respondent did not arrest the original loanee Muhammad Mushtaq at all.
4. Learned Law Officer under instructions submits that Naveed Mushtaq is still in judicial lock-up.
The aforesaid robkar did not receive by the jail authority till date.
5. The learned counsel of the petitioner in rebuttal submits that the respondents malafidely detained both the detenus, therefore, action be taken against the respondents.
6. I have given my anxious consideration to the contentions of the learned counsel of the parties and perused the record myself.
7. It is admitted fact that detenu Naveed Mushtaq did not give any guarantee at the time of sanctioning of loan by the respondents-Bank in favour of original loanee. It is also admitted fact that the respondents had initiated proceedings against the original loanee and secured Zamanatnama from. The detenu Naveed Mushtaq on 20-11-2001 on simple piece of paper without obtaining any security from the detenu. It is also not denied by the respondents that the said detenu aged is about 15 years. In case all the facts are put in juxta-position, then it is crystal clear that the respondents secured Zamanatnama from the detenu under pressure, therefore, the action of the respondents is not sustainable in the eyes of law. Even otherwise on instructions of the respondents, a robkar was issued by the competent. Authority to the jail authority on 20-3-2002 to release the detenu Naveed Mushtaq.
8. In view of what has been discussed above, this writ petition is accepted to the extent of detenu Naveed Mushtaq. The respondents are directed to set the detenu Naveed Mushtaq at liberty forthwith. The respondents had taken definite stand that original loanee was not detained by the respondents and original loanee had repaid all the outstanding of the respondents as is evident from robkar issued by the Manager of the respondents-Bank on 20-3-2002. It is settled proposition of law that habeas corpus petition is a nature of summary proceedings, therefore, this Court has no jurisdiction to record the evidence as per principle laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case "Nisar Muhammad etc. v. Sultan Zari" (PLD 1997 SC 852). The petitioner has alternative remedy to take action against the respondents before the competent Authority/competent forum as per principle laid down by this Court in Muhammad Sharif's case (PLD 1975 Lahore 729).
' In view of what has been discussed above, the habeas corpus petition to the extent of Muhammad Mushtaq detenu, has no force and the same is dismissed.