Law: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)

Section: 22A,491,561A

Law: Penal Code (XLV of 1860)

Section: 353,337A(ii)

Law: Punjab Prevention of Gambling Ordinance, 1978

Section: VII,5

Law: Constitution of Pakistan, 1973

Section: 9,10,14

Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)-------Ss. 22-A & 491, 561-A---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 353 & 337-A(ii)--Prevention of Gambling Ordinance(VII of 1978), S. 5---Inherent powers of High Court under S. 561-A, Cr.P.C.---Habeas corpus---Scope---Powers of Ex-officio Justice of Peace---Order passed by Ex-officio Justice of Peace for imposing a cost of Rs. 100,000/- upon the applicants for the purported detention of the private respondent---Applicants assailed order passed by Ex-officio Justice of Peace and sought quashing of the same---Entire case of the applicants depended upon the Roznamcha Diary dated 12.3.2024, which showed that the private respondent was arrested in Crime No. 88 of 2024 under Ss.353, 337-A(ii) P.P.C and under S.5 of Prevention of Gambling Ordinance, 1978, which was lodged against unknown person and the private respondent was shown arrested upon further statement of the Police Official/complainant recorded on 10.3.2024--Complainant did not disclose the names of any accused in the FIR and the applicants had based their case on the further statement of complainant to show the arrest of respondent on 12.3.2024 to avoid the punishment by keeping the private respondent in illegal detention---However, when the raid was conducted no such police entry was available or produced as per raid report; perhaps they managed the police record to justify the arrest of the respondent---However, the Ex-Officio Justice of Peace disbelieved their story and ordered imposition of cost of Rs. 100,000/- upon the applicants for detaining the respondent at Police Station and registration of criminal case against the applicants---If this was the position, no illegality was seen in the order---Primarily, the police Officials were unaware of the fundamental right of the citizens which was assured under Art.14 of the Constitution---If sufficient material was discernible from the facts and record of the case that an individual was kept in captivity unlawfully by a police official, the Courts had to come forward with a pragmatic approach for the protection of fundamental rights guaranteed under Arts. 9,10 & 14 of the Constitution and must not hesitate in…