1997 PLP 3258 (MLD)

The S.I./S.H.O. has produced the medico‑legal certificates of both Muhammad Akram and Zafar Iqbal detenus disclosing thereby that no marks of violence were found on the persons of the alleged detenus. Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that absence of the Parat from the original register of daily diary in which the arrest was stated to have been entered on 17‑11‑1996 reflects that the same was forged by the said officials, after they had come to know above the raid conducted by the bailiff of this Court. According to the learned counsel, the case in which arrest of the detenus has been shown was registered about five months earlier and that the detenus were not named therein specifically, as such the arrest under section 54, Cr.P.C. was shown, so as to defeat the ends of justice, as the process was issued from this Court for the recovery of the alleged detenus. The S.I./S.H.O. on the other hand submits that it was during the investigation that the complainant had expressed his suspicion regarding involvement of the detenus who were stated to be the members of a gang which had committed the offence. S.I./S.H.O., however, has not been able to satisfy this Court regarding the absence of parat from the daily diary register or regarding the arrest of the detenus under section 54, Cr.P.C. on 17‑I1‑1996 at 7.20 a.m. Prima facie it seems as if the parat of the daily diary was prepared subsequently so as to save their own skin as they had illegally detained the detenus for so many days prior to the raid conducted by the bailiff.

3. In this view of the matter, it was deemed fit to order the Addl. Superintendent of Police, Sahiwal to hold an enquiry into the conduct of Mulazim Hussain S.I./S.H.O. and Mukhtar Hussain A.S.I. Police Station Ghala Mandi, Sahiwal and intimate this Court about the result of the action taken against the said officials within four weeks.

4. Learned counsel at this stage submits, that as the arrest of the petitioners were not strictly in accordance with law and was hurriedly incorporated on a separate Parat of the daily diary, and, absence of the names of the petitioners from the above said F.I.R., he would request that this petition may be treated as a bail application and the petitioners be allowed bail which is necessitated in the circumstances of the case. To substantiate his contentions learned counsel placed reliance on Abdul Qayyum v. S.H.O. (1993 PCr.LJ 91), Ali Muhammad v. S.H.O. (1995 PCr.LJ 626) and Farzand Ali Shah v. S.H.0. (1995 PCr. LJ 1076).

5. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel and have gone through the case‑law cited at the Bar.

6. I feel pursuaded to agree with the learned counsel that the manners. and procedure adopted by the S.H.O. were doubtful. and were apparently not strictly in accordance with law. In this view of the matter, the petitioners are allowed interim bail till 16‑12‑1996 subject to their furnishing bail bond in the sum of Rs.35,000 with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of Duty/Judicial Magistrate, Sahiwal.

7. Meanwhile the petitioners shall if advised seek alternate remedy before the Court of competent jurisdiction. The detenus are further directed to join the investigation as and when required by the police. This petition stands disposed of accordingly. (The order of this Court dated 18‑11‑1996 may be read as part of this order.) H.B.T./M‑393/L Interim bail allowed