JUDGMENT Yesterday we have recorded the statement of Roopa, who was produced before us from judicial custody. As the time of the Court was over, Shri Dubey appearing for respondent No. 3 requested for today to start cross-examination of Roopa. Today an objection in preliminary nature is raised that any enquiry conducted by this Court is likely to prejudice the proceedings pending before the A.C.J.M. on the application for alleged illegal detention in police custody filed on behalf of Roopa. Few orders of this Court as also Supreme Court are cited to state that normally the enquiry should be made over to a subordinate Court or to any other competent officer. It is also stated that the enquiry held by us is likely to prejudice any criminal case which may be filed in future against the police officer for the alleged misdeed. After hearing counsel for the respondents, we do not find any justification for us to close these proceedings and leave the matter for enquiry to any other Court. The petition was brought before us to obtain a rule of habeas corpus and such other writ as is deemed proper in the circumstances. The petitioner has alleged violation of his human rights because of his ill-treatment meted out to him in the police custody. There is no request made on behalf of the petitioner that he proposes to file any criminal case against the respondents for the alleged ill-treatment meted out to him while he was in police custody. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that he does not want to proceed any further in the matter before the Chief Judicial Magistrate. It is true that this Court does not ordinarily record the evidence, but it has ample power to do so where violation of fundamental right under Article 21 is alleged. The rules of the High Court contained in rule 6 (b) in Chapter-I and rule 40 in Chapter-II of the High Court Rules framed for proceedings under Article 226 permit this Court to record the evidence in the proceedings. Since we have already commenced examining Roopa, who is produced before us from the judicial custody and the matter was adjourned to enable the counsel for the respondents to cross-examine him, we do not think its proper at this stage to hand-over the enquiry to any sub-ordinate Court or authority. The preliminary objection is, therefore, overruled. Since we have already commenced examining Roopa, who is produced before us from the judicial custody and the matter was adjourned to enable the counsel for the respondents to cross-examine him, we do not think its proper at this stage to hand-over the enquiry to any sub-ordinate Court or authority. The preliminary objection is, therefore, overruled. Roopa, who is produced before us is cross-examined by Shri P.L. Dubey on behalf of respondent No. 3 and Shri J.D. Suryavanshi, on behalf of respondents No. 1 and 2. Put up on 18.7.1995, as Shri Dubey states that he would like to examine some witnesses on behalf of his party. Roopa be now sent to the judicial custody in jail from where he was brought. Necessary arrangements be made for his being lodged in the jail. Shri Tripathi, learned counsel for the petitioner informs that the bail application on behalf of Roopa has been filed in the appropriate Court, but it has not been decided so far because of the police diary and the other connecting record being with us. Let the record of the Court of A.C.J.M. be forthwith sent back to that Court. Learned Government Advocate is directed t9 place a photocopy of the police diary on record and original diary be returned to the police for the purpose of disposal of the bail application. Put up on 18.7.1995.