1981 P Cr (PLP)

9. The petitioners were remanded to judicial custody after having been charge) under section 307/364/149/323/148/188, P. P, C.

10. It is worth mentioning that although the injured person Bashir had named only five persons as assailants in his statement made before the Magistrate in the hospital of Hafizabad on the same day of occurrence, a so-called eye-witness Sher Muhammad involved 24 persons instead of

5. The Police, however, arrested 71 to 72 persons. Such instances of whole. sale incarceration at the behest of the ruling junta were unfortunately not rare during the last six or seven years.

11. Bashir had suffered nine injuries in all. Out of them only two were grievous which were caused by blunt weapon and were on his arm and leg. He was declared to be free of any danger on 28th September, 1976 by the Medical Officer, It is therefore, rightly alleged that the offence should have fallen under section 325, P. P. C. and not under sections 307/ 364/325/ 149/ 148 and 188, P. P. C.

12. This was followed by wholesale arrest of the servants working with the families of the petitioners under section 107/151 and their being locked-up at Rafizabad, No action was taken against the other party. Not even rarely does the police apprehend only one party under section 107/151 but in this case it was thought to be the proper thing to do.

13. The applications for bail presented by the petitioners were kept pending by the Assistant Commissioner Hafizabad. A report had to be made to the Sessions Judge, Gujranwala who directed the disposal of the bail applications. The A. C. however, stubbornly declined to grant bail to petitioner No. 1 and other members of his family for about more than seven days so that the Sessions Judge himself granted bail to them.

14. A large number of telegrams were sent complaining of the District Administration by the petitioners. More than 100 members of the District Bar Association, Gujranawala arid the Sub-Divisional Bar Associations of Hafizabad and Wazirabad along with throe Presidents of the Bar Associa?tions protested to the Prime Minister of Pakistan. Consequently a D. I.-G. of Police was deputed and he submitted a report that all the six cases under the Arms Ordinance against petitioner No. 1 and his relatives were false and should be cancelled. In the other cases under section 307/364/ 149/ 148/ 188, P. P. C. 64 persons out of 70 were also declared innocent and discharged and with the exception of only six persons other persons arrested in the case under section 379/148, P. P. C. were also discharged.

15. Despite protests no action was taken by the then Government against the Deputy Commissioner and the Resident Magistrate. The petition is replete with allegations of atrocious behaviour on the part of the District Administration and an all-out bid to involve the petitioners and their families.

16. In paragraph 14 of the petition the following salient features of the incarceration have been mentioned:-- (1) Nine injuries, 70 arrested. (2) Injured person Bashir involving only five persons, D. C. ordering arrest of 70. (3) Injured person Bashir not mentioning any fire-arm, D. C. ordering recovery of fire-arms. (4) Injured not receiving any fire-arm injury, D. C. calling upon Doctor to look for one. (5) F. I. R. mentions firing but injured person in his statement makes no reference, whatsoever. (6) F. I. R. mentions 24 armed, D. C. in Press note issued by D. C. says 64 armed. (7) Injured described motive as his being witness in theft case whereas he is not a witness. (8) D. C. not ordering recovery from the other party of fire-arms when known to possess unlicensed fire-arms in abundance. (9) D. C. not ordering security proceedings against other group dancing and raising slogans brazenfacedly for annihilation of Tarar family. (10) Six cases of theft and burgularies reported by Tarars resulting in huge loss of property of Tarar families, were not investigated, no recoveries, no arrests made despite several representations.

17. The conduct of Mr. Akhtar Saeed as Deputy Commissioner, Gujranwala, has been condemned in the resolutions adopted by the Lahore High Court Bar Association, Punjab Bar Council and the District Bar Association, Gujranwala.

18. A perusal of the evidence recorded under section 202, Cr. P. C, shows that at least the names of 60 persons who had been summoned by the Magistrate are not mentioned in it at all. The complaint had been lodged by Sher Muhammad and he had named 24 persons and given various details of the occurrence. Bashir, the injured person, made a statement before a Magistrate and accused only six persons as assailants and has contradicted the complainant on the salient features of the case.

19. I have gone through the record of the case and find that the allegations made in the petition are correct, and that no case is made out against the petitioners wherefore I quash the proceedings before the learned trial Magistrate and discharge the accused. Proceedings quashed.