Sant Singh v. State of Punjab through Secretary, Department of Home Affairs
2000-07-14
V.M.JAIN
body2000
DigiLaw.ai
JUDGMENT V.M. Jain, J. - This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the issuance of a writ of habeas corpus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the respondents to produce Bhagat Singh, brother of Sant Singh, petitioner, in this Court and to release him from their illegal custody and in case the respondents fail to produce Bhagat Singh in the Court, to order an independent probe preferably by the CBI, in order to ascertain the whereabouts of Bhagat Singh. 2. In the petition, it was alleged that on 11.6.1993, the Police of CIA Staff, Bhawanigarh, raided the house of Bhagat Singh, brother of the petitioner, in village Salempur and since Bhagat Singh was not present in his house, the police came to the house of the petitioner and took the petitioner along with it telling Gurbachan Singh, Sarpanch, that the petitioner would be released only if Bhagat Singh, brother of the petitioner, was handed over to the police. It was alleged that at that time Raghbir Singh, brother-in-law of the petitioner was also with the police and both of them were taken to Police Station, Bhawanigarh, and were kept there; that on 13.6.1993, the police of Police Station, Malerkotla, again raided the house of Bhagat Singh and he was not found present even at that time, whereupon the police raided the house of the petitioner and at that time, petitioners brother Kunda Singh and his brother-in-law Ved Singh, who had come to enquire about the whereabouts of the petitioner, were also picked up by the police and were taken to Police Station, Malerkotla; that on 15.6.1993, Ved Singh was released and he was directed to produce Bhagat Singh in Police Station, Malerkotla; that after some days, Bhagat Singh was brought to CIA staff and at that time, he was in a bad shape and both of his legs were broken; that during their illegal detention, the petitioner and his brother-in-law Raghbir Singh were badly tortured and ultimately on 30.6.1993, the petitioner and his relations were released; that after few days after his release, the petitioner met the concerned authorities to know the whereabouts of his brother Bhagat Singh, but of no avail; that the whereabouts of Bhagat Singh were not known since then. 3. Notice of motion was issued. Replies were filed by various respondents controverting various allegations.
3. Notice of motion was issued. Replies were filed by various respondents controverting various allegations. In the written statement filed by respondent Nos. 1 to 3, it was alleged that while filing the present petition, the petitioner had suppressed some material facts from the Court. It was alleged that FIR 43 dated 29.6.1993 under Section 25 of the Arms Act was registered against Bhagat Singh in Police Station, Malerkotla, when he was apprehended by the police and a .12 bore country made pistol along with 4 cartridges was recovered from him; that on interrogation, accused Bhagat Singh had made a disclosure statement in respect of 2 AK-47 rifles along with cartridges at the house of Darshan Singh r/o Village Gangohar and offered to get the same recovered and when the police party was taking Bhagat Singh to the disclosed place and the police party had reached in the area of the village Kalyan, accused Bhagat Singh requested for being allowed to answer the call of the nature and being allowed to do so, he made good his escape by getting off from the belt of Constable Satnam Singh along with handcuffs; that the police party tried to apprehend him, but taking advantage of the darkness, he escaped, whereupon FIR 46 dated 30.6.1993 under Section 224, Indian Penal Code, was registered at Police Station Ahmedgarh; that subsequently, he was declared a proclaimed offender on 19.7.1993 by the SDJM, Malerkotla; that after 30.6.1993, the whereabouts of Bhagat Singh were not known to the police. 4. After hearing both the sides, Honble S.C. Malte, J. (as his Lordships then was), vide order dated 2.9.1997, directed the Sessions Judge, Sangrur, to hold further enquiry himself or get it conducted from any of his subordinates and submit his report within six months. In pursuance thereof, Sh. J.P. Mehmi, Additional Sessions Judge, Sangrur, held the enquiry and submitted his report dated 13.10.1998 to this Court. In nutshell, the finding given in the said report was that Bhagat Singh was arrested by the police, but the story put forth by the police that Bhagat Singh had escaped from the police custody was false and concocted and the needle of suspicion for the elimination of Bhagat Singh stopped at the lower level, but such heinous act could not have been done by the lower rankers without the green signal of the higher officers. 5.
5. Against the abovesaid report of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, objections were filed by the SSP, Sangrur, on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 to 3. 6. After hearing learned Counsel for the parties and going through the record carefully, in my opinion, it is a fit case where necessary directions are required to be issued to the local police to register an FIR, on the basis of report dated 13.10.1998 submitted by Sh J.P. Mehmi, Additional Sessions Judge, Sangrur, concerning Bhagat Singh and investigate the same in accordance with law. I order accordingly. The FIR shall be registered forthwith. The investigation shall be conducted by an officer, not below the rank of a Superintendent of Police. The investigation shall be completed expeditiously in accordance with law. 7. Needless to mention that even though the FIR shall be registered on the basis of the fact finding enquiry report dated 13.10.1998 submitted by Sh. J.P. Mehmi, Additional Sessions Judge, Sangrur, the investigating officer shall conduct the investigation independently, without being prejudiced with any observation/finding given in the said report. It is further made clear that if challan is submitted in the Court against any person, after the competition of the investigation, the trial Judge shall hold the trial without being prejudiced by any observation/finding given in the report dated 13.10.1998 of Sh. J.P. Mehmi, Additional Sessions Judge, Sangrur. Order accordingly.