2010 P Cr (PLP)

IJAZ-UL-AHSAN, J.

The brief facts giving rise to this constitutional petition are that a relative of the petitioner namely Muhammad Musa filed a habeas corpus petition for the recovery of petitioner's husband namely Muhammad Yasin along with Abdul Sattar and Younus from the illegal custody of respondent No.2 and his other companions. The learned Justice of Peace/Sessions Judge deputed a Bailiff for recovery of detenus. He raided Police Station Kahna but could not recover detenus. In the meantime, it appears that respondent No.2 who was detaining the detenus obtained their physical remand and sent them to jail.

2. Respondent No.2 and other officials of Police Station Kahna, Lahore became inimical towards the petitioner and her family. They abducted their relatives namely Muhammad Musa and Noor Muhammad on 20-5-2009 for pursuing the case of the detenus.

3. The wife of Musa namely, Salma Bibi moved an application with respondent No.3 for recovery of her husband and Noor Muhammad who had unlawfully been detained by respondent No.2. The applications did not evoke any response which lead to a petition under sections 22-A and 22-B, Cr.P.C. Salma Bibi got a direction issued to respondent No.3 C.C.P.O. to inquire into the matter and proceed in accordance with law.

4. It is alleged that Khan Muhammad A.S.-I. Model Town, Lahore took remand of Yasin and Abdul Sattar in case F.I.R. No.12 of 2003 for an offence under section 381-A, P.P.C. The learned Illaqa Magistrate granted the same till 8-6-2009. Thereafter, further remand of Yasin and Abdul Sattar was not sought. The families of the aforesaid persons approached respondent No.2 for their recovery but were informed that they had escaped from police custody and in this regard case F.I.R. No.216 of 2009 had been registered against them at Police Station Model Town, Lahore.

5. During their 'effort to trace the whereabouts of the foresaid persons, their family received information that they had been detained by respondent No.2 in a private torture cell. A habeas corpus petition was accordingly filed. Bailiff appointed by the learned Sessions Judge, Lahore succeeded to recover the aforesaid persons from a private residence near Akbar Chowk, Lahore. The bailiff reported that the abductees/detenus had been fettered and hand-cuffed and were tied with an iron rod at the time he raided the aforesaid premises.

6. On the basis of the report filed by the bailiff, an application was filed with respondent No.1 for registration of a criminal case against respondent No.2. He refused to do so. The petitioner seeks a direction from this Court to respondent No.1 to entertain the application of the petitioner and to register a criminal case against respondent No.2 and others involved in this criminal activity. Report and parawise comments were called from respondent No. 1.

7. I have examined the report with the assistance of counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Assistant Advocate-General. The respondent No.1 has made a long story without addressing the main issue and understandably so, he has tried to distance himself from the findings of the bailiff by stating that since no police officials were found on the spot, the story of the detenus being kept under unlawful detention appears to be far fetched. He has further submitted in his parawise comments that Yasin, Musa and Abdul Sattar are habitual criminals and are involved in criminal activities of various nature. He has however, failed to explain why an F.I.R. was lodged to the effect that the detenus had escaped from police custody and yet they were discovered in police custody albeit in a private torture cell.

8. The conduct of the respondents smells of wrong doing, violation of the law and rights of citizens guaranteed under the Constitution. If at all Yasin, Musa and Abdul Sattar are involved in criminal activities, they still have a right of due process, to be treated in accordance with law and to a fair trial. I got a distinct impression from the parawise comments examined by me that a conscious efforts was made to short circuit the process of law and punish certain people at the whims of the respondents which cannot be allowed. This sort of behaviour would lead to lawlessness and anarchy. This Court cannot step aside, allow State functionaries to take the law in their hands and blatantly violate rights guaranteed to citizens by the Constitution.

9. All citizens are entitled to be treated equally and in accordance with law. No individual, entity or organization can be allowed to transgress its limits defined by the law and the Constitution. In my opinion, the respondents have prima facie transgressed, crossed such limits.

10. I, therefore, direct respondent No.3 to hold a detailed and indepth inquiry into this matter. In case the allegations against respondents Nos.1 and 2 are found to be correct, he shall ensure that appropriate action is taken against all officials of the police involved in the matter in accordance with law. A copy of this petition shall be transmitted to respondent No.3 along with a copy of this order. The inquiry shall be completed after recording the statement of the petitioner as well as all other affected parties. A copy of the inquiry report shall be submitted with the Deputy Registrar (Judi.) of this Court within 15 days from the date of communication of this order to respondent No.3. With these observations, this petition is disposed of. H.B.T./R-84/L Order accordingl