1997 P Cr (PLP)

Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)

S. 491

Habeas corpus petition

Detenu, in his affidavit, had fully implicated the police by stating that the S.H.O. after having arrested him had kept him in police station and at the time of raid conducted under the orders of High Court he had been removed by the police personnel to the house of S.H.O. where he had been detained so long as the raiding Officer remained at police station

Station House Officer of the police station although had denied the allegations yet there was no reason to disbelieve the detenu who could take appropriate action against the S.H.O. in accordance with law

Such an attitude of detaining people without any entry at police station and then filing untrue statements knowingly was unbecoming of a responsible Police Officer and highly objectionable

Administration and particularly police must remember that they were servants of law and not servants of any individual, politician of officer howsoever high he might be and were not bound to obey the illegal orders of their superiors and that injustice anywhere was threat to justice everywhere-- Conduct of the , S.H.O. being contrary to the established principles of law, D.I.-G. Police and S.S.P. concerned were directed to take departmental action against him

Detenu having been released the petition was dismissed as withdrawn. Zulfikar Ali Bhutto v. The State PLD 1979 SC 53 ref. Azizullah M. Buriro for Petitioner. Ali Azhar Tunio, Asstt. A.-G. I enquired from S.H.O-. in Court regarding the defence which he has taken in reply statement wherein he has stated that he (the detenu) is Nekmard and came to visit him when the Civil Judge recorded his statement. On my enquiry, the S.H.O. expressed ignorance ant he stated that he only came to know that he (the detenu) is Nekmard on enquiry. He did not know detenu before. He also stated that he had not arrested him. He has not kept him at police station nor he was removed from police station to the police quarters. He also stated that he has no previous enmity with detenu. As against this version of the S.H.O., the detenu has specifically stated that he was arrested by this S.H.O. He was kept at police station and that when the orders were passed directing Civil Judge to visit the police station the police personnel removed him to the quarters of S.H.O. where he was detained so long as Civil Judge was available at the police station. I have no reason to disbelieve the detenu who has fully implicated the S.H.O. It is for the petitioner or the detenu to take appropriate steps for taking action against the S.H.O. in accordance with law. Such an attitude of detaining people without any entry at police station and then filing statements, which are known to be untrue to the persons making such statement is unbecoming of a responsible Police Officer. Such an attitude on the part of persons responsible for the lives and liberties of the citizens is highly objectionable. The administration and particularly police must remember that they are servants of law and not servants of any individual, politician or officer howsoever high he may be. Supreme Court of Pakistan has already stated in the case of Mr. Zulfikar Ali Bhutto v. The State PLD 1979 SC 53 that the police functionaries are not bound to obey the illegal orders of their superiors. They should also remember that injustice anywhere is threat to justice everywhere. The conduce of the S.H.O. under the circumstances I am afraid, is contrary to the established principles of law. I would, therefore, direct the Additional Registrar of this Court to send the copies of all orders passed by this Court to D.I.-G Police, Hyderabad and S.S.P. Dadu for taking departmental action against such Police Officer and report within six months as to what action has been taken and with what results. A copy of this order may also be given to Mr. Ali Azhar Tunio, learned Assistant Advocate-General who shall also convey the orders of the Court to the high-ups in the Administration. Such orders/ communications shall be placed on record. Since the detenu has been released, this petition has borne fruit. Under the circumstances, learned counsel for the petitioner does not press this petition which is dismissed as withdrawn. N.H.Q./S-77/K Petition dismissed.