1989 PLP 4063 (MLD)

Rana Abdul Hamid Khan for Petitioner. In pursuance of a direction of this Court, the bailiff has recovered the alleged detenu Rana Muhammad Shat who was found locked in the Police Lock up of Police Station Gojra Sadar. According to the report, he was arrested on the same day, i.e. on 14‑5‑1989 under section 54, Cr.P.C. in the evening in connection with a case registered on 23‑10‑1985 under section 379, P.P.C. The report of the bailiff further reveals that the arrest of the alleged detenu was not shown in the daily diary of the said police station. It was only mentioned in the case diaries.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the alleged detenu was arrested 8/10 days before his recovery by the bailiff and during this period he has been tortured. The S.H.O. who has also entered appearance, has stated that he had arrested him on 13‑5‑1989 at about 8 or 8‑15 p.m., therefore, his arrest could not be recorded in the Roznamcha, which he was going to do when the bailiff raided the premises. Submits that the alleged detenu is required in connection with the case under section 379, P.P.C. The Superintendent of Police, Toba Tek Singh is directed to have Muhammad Shafi medically examined from a Police Surgeon. In case some injuries are found on the person of Muhammad Shafi, then a case against the concerned official stall be registered under the relevant provisions and a copy of the F.I.R. shall be sent to the Deputy Registrar (Judl.) of this Court who shall bring it to the notice of this Court. The case shall be invested to some other agency for investigation and weekly report with regard to the progress of the investigation shall also be communicated to the Deputy Registrar (Judl.) of this Court. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that his arrest has been shown in a case which was registered three years earlier, which, on the face of it, is mala fide. Contends that there is no evidence so far available with the investigating agency which could even remotely connect the alleged detenu with the commission of the said offence. He has prayed for bail in the said case.

3. I have heard the learned counsel and feel that it is an appropriate case where the detenu would be entitled to the concession of bail. Therefore, the detenu is allowed bail provided he furnishes security in the sum of Rs.10,000with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of Assistant Commissioner/Duty Magistrate, Toba Tek Singh. The petition is disposed of in the terms stated above. The amount of security Rs.300 shall be returned to the petitioner. N.H.Q./M‑1572/L Order accordingly.