Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2000 DIGILAW 1127 (PNJ)

Nirbhaya Singh v. Waryam Singh

2000-09-15

S.S.NIJJAR

body2000
JUDGMENT S.S. Nijjar, J. (Oral) - Pursuant to the order of this Court dated 11.8.2000, the parents of the alleged detenu, namely, Waryam Singh and Gurdev Singh who were arrested and have been produced in Court. The petitioner claims to be legally wedded husband at Raj Kaur. Initially, a case under Sections 363/366/376/34/342 Indian Penal Code was registered against the petitioner on 29.12.1999 vide FIR No. 351 at the instance of respondent No. 1, the father of the wife. However, Raj Kaur made statements before the police to the effect that she has married the petitioner in accordance with the Sikh rites. Even then, the parents were compelling the wife to return to the parents. The marriage between Raj Kaur and petitioner was not approved by the parents, as the petitioner belongs to the Jat community and the parents of wife belong to the Baazigar community. The police handed over the custody of Raj Kaur to the respondents on 16.3.2000. Consequently, the petitioner was constrained to file the present Habeas Corpus petition. 2. The petition came up for hearing on 26.4.2000 when notice was issued to be respondent i.e. the father and the mother of wife-Raj Kaur for 3.5.2000. They were directed to produce the alleged detenu on that date. Thereafter, the matter was adjourned time and again as the notices could not be served on the respondents. On 25.5.2000, last opportunity was given to the respondents to produce Raj Kaur in Court on the next date of hearing. It was made clear that otherwise, the court may adopt coercive method for her appearance. On the next date of hearing, not only the respondents, but the counsel for the respondents were also absent. Fresh notices were issued for 4.7.2000. On 5.7.2000, Waryam Singh appeared in Court and stated that his daughter had gone to village Chakmannewal, Tehsil and District Ganganagar. He was, therefore, directed to produce Raj Kaur in Court on 10.7.2000. On the next date of hearing, again the counsel for the respondents as well as the respondents were absent. Raj Kaur was not produce in Court. Again as a last chance, the matter was adjourned to 13.7.2000. On that date, the counsel for respondents No. 1 and 2 stated that there is no instructions from respondents No. 1 and 2. The mater was adjourned to 14.7.2000. 3. Raj Kaur was not produce in Court. Again as a last chance, the matter was adjourned to 13.7.2000. On that date, the counsel for respondents No. 1 and 2 stated that there is no instructions from respondents No. 1 and 2. The mater was adjourned to 14.7.2000. 3. Keeping the aforesaid facts in views, Warrant Officer was appointed with the directions to search the residence of respondents No. 1 and 2 and for securing the release of Raj Kaur. The Warrant Officer was not taken to the residences as, in the meantime, the respondents had disappeared from the village altogether. On 11.8.2000, it was observed by this Court that from the facts narrated, it becomes apparent that the respondents had scant regards for the orders of this Court. Therefore, it was necessary to direct the issuance of non-bailable warrants for the arrest of respondents No. 1 and 2. Further directions were issued to the S.H.O. of Police Station Barnala to produce the respondents alongwith Raj Kaur before the local Magistrate. The Magistrate was directed to consider the application for bail of the respondents, if any, made. Thereafter, the respondents alongwith the wife were directed to be produced before the Court on 21.8.2000. Pursuant to the issuance of non- bailable warrants, the two respondents were produced before the Local Magistrate. The Magistrate directed the release of the respondents on bail on their furnishing personal bonds in the sum of Rs. 5000/- with one surety in the like amount with an undertaking that they shall appear before this Court on 15.9.2000 at 10.000 a.m. sharp, failing which ASI-Jaswant Singh was directed to produce the two respondents in this Court. Hence, the two respondents are present in Court today. 4. On an enquiry being made from the father-Waryam Singh, he has stated that his daughter is in the habit of disappearing from the house. She had earlier disappeared with the petitioner. He has further stated that she has now gone to Village Chakmannewal, Tehsil and District Ganganagar (Rajasthan). He is unable to state the mode of transport used by the girl for reaching the destination. He has further stated that on enquiry, it has been found that she has not reached the said Chakmannewal. 5. Given the previous history as narrated above, this Court is left with no option, but to direct the registration of a criminal case against both the respondents. He has further stated that on enquiry, it has been found that she has not reached the said Chakmannewal. 5. Given the previous history as narrated above, this Court is left with no option, but to direct the registration of a criminal case against both the respondents. The police is directed to investigate the matter thoroughly. Further proceedings to be taken in accordance with law thereafter. 6. With these observations, the Habeas Croups petition is disposed of. No costs. 7. Copy of this order be given dasti to the parties under the signature of Special Secretary of this Court. Order accordingly.