1990 P Cr (PLP)

SYED ABDUR REHMAN, J.-- This is a petition under Article 199 of the Constitution whereby the detention under M.P.O. of Abdul Wahid son of Faiz Muhammad Rajar has been challenged by the petitioner, who is the uncle of detenu Abdul Wahid. The order is dated 4-6-1990 and has been passed for a period of thirty (30) days. The detenu is alleged to have been taken by the Police of Bhitai Police Station, District Hyderabad on 20-3-1990 in a certain case and remanded to custody from time to time by the different Police agencies till 9-5-1990. It is further alleged that the detenu was still in custody when the above order of detention passed on 4-6-1990 by the District Magistrate, Hyderabad was served on him. The detention order is based on the following grounds: -- (1) That he indulges in terrorist activities and provides arms and ammunition to one group of regional linguistic party. (2) That he instigates the people for rioting and due to harassment/panic common man of the locality is not ready to come forward and state against him. (3) That he has been indulging in anti-social activities prejudicial to public order and as such his remaining at large will be hazardous to the public peace and tranquillity. So far as the first two grounds are concerned these are allegations with regard to the detenu indulging in terrorist activities, provided aims and ammunition to one group of regional linguistic party instigated the people for rioting and due to harassment/panic common man of the locality is not ready to come forward and state against him. These allegations do not specify as to when, where and how the alleged detenu had indulged in terrorist activities, provided arms and ammunition to a group of regional linguistic party and had instigated people for rioting. When we asked Mr.Muhammad Siddique Kharal, the learned A AA.-G. as to whether he had any material available with him in support of these allegations, he frankly conceded that there was no record to substantiate these allegations and as such the allegations are not only vague, but are also not supportable from any record. It is, therefore, quite clear that grounds No.1 and 2 are vague and indefinite. Reliance was placed in the Division Bench decision of this Court in the well-known case of Dr. Saleem Haider reported in 1988 P Cr.L J 486. where it was held following the decision in the cases of, inter alia, Hyder Bux Jatoi P L D 1969 SC 210, Ghulam Jilani P L D 1967 S C 373, Abdul Baqi Baloch P L D 1968 SC 313, Begum Shorish Kashmiri P L D 1969 SC 14 and Muhammad Younus v. Province of Sindh P L D 1973 Kar. 694 that the grounds of detention to be communicated to the detenu must contain particulars of facts which would enable him to make representation. If the grounds are not precise and lack particulars, this would constitute an omission to comply with the requirements of law and therefore, cannot be considered as sufficient and valid in the eyes of law. It was further held in the case of Dr.Saleem Haider supra that if one of the grounds of detention is found to be unsustainable, the entire detention order would be vitiated since in that case it would be hard to determine which of the grounds had led to the passing of the detention order or whether the same was the result of all the grounds taken together. Even in subsequent D.B. decisions of this Court reported in 1988 P Cr. L J 1087 (Muhammad Abdullah v. District Magistrate) and 1988 P Cr. L J 1451 (Tariq Khan Akbar v. Government of Sindh) the same view is taken. So far as the third ground of detention is concerned, which alleges that the detenu had been indulging in anti-social activities prejudicial to public order and as such his remaining at large will be hazardous to the public peace and tranquillity, the same only gives reasons for his detention and is in fact not a ground of detention. The learned A.A.-G. has conceded that on the basis of material available C with him he is unable to support the order of detention. We, therefore, quash this order of detention and allow this petition. The detenu is ordered to be released forthwith, if he is not required in any other case. These are the reasons of our short orders passed today. N.H.Q./A-902/K Petition allowed.