Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2001 DIGILAW 44 (PNJ)

Malkiat Singh v. Ram Singh

2001-01-10

S.S.NIJJAR

body2001
Judgment S.S.Nijjar, J. 1. This petition for issuance of a writ of habeas corpus was filed on 20.3.2000. The allegations in the petition are that the Annual Sports Tournament was to be held from March 20, 2000 to March 23, 2000. The Sarpanch of the village namely Sh. Faqir Singh son of Mai Ditta and Panches namely Nirmal Singh son of Amuria Singh and Smt. Sukhwinder Kaur wife of Shingara Singh son of Ram Kishan were opposed to conduct of the said tournament in the village. They, therefore, brought some Police to the village on 16.3.2000 and took away the following persons : 1. Kirpal Singh son of Jawand Singh-Brother of the petitioner. 2. Balwinder Singh son of aforesaid Sh. Kirpal Singh. 3. Tarseem Singh son of Sohan Singh. 4. Sarup Singh son of Kartar Singh; and 5. Mohan Singh son of Kehar Singh. 2. A large number of persons went from the village to the Police Station seeking the release of the aforesaid detenues. The Police did not release the alleged detenues. No explanation was also given as to why these persons have been taken into Police custody. On 17.3.2000, the petitioner along with 80 persons again went to the Police Station but met with the same result. The petitioner has, therefore, sent separate telegrams to Honble the Chief Justice of this Court and the learned District and Sessions Judge, Ludhiana on March 19, 2000 at about 12.30 a.m. and 12.45 a.n. The alleged detenues were not produced before any Magistrate. 3. After hearing the learned counsel the Warrant Officer was appointed. On 24.3.2000, the Warrant Officer submitted the report. On page 1 of the report, the Warrant Officer stated that the S.H.O. has shown DDR No. 15 dated 19.3.2000 recorded in the roznamcha. This entry is recorded under Sections 107, 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure registered against Kirpal Singh, Sarup Singh, Balwinder Singh and Malkiat Singh. The Warrant Officer further stated that the S.D.M. Samrala has granted bail to Tarsem Singh, Mohan Singh, Kirpal Singh and Balwinder Singh. The Warrant Officer also stated that no case was registered against Tarsem Singh, Mohan Singh nor they were found in the premises of the Police Station Sadar, Khanna. 4. It becomes apparent that the report of the Warrant Officer is contradictory and not clear. The Warrant Officer also stated that no case was registered against Tarsem Singh, Mohan Singh nor they were found in the premises of the Police Station Sadar, Khanna. 4. It becomes apparent that the report of the Warrant Officer is contradictory and not clear. Reply has been filed by one Mohinder Paul Singh, Shokar, Deputy Superintendent of Police, Khanna. In this reply, it is stated that keeping in view the problem of law and order, Kirpal Singh son of Jaswand Singh, Sarup Singh son of Kartar Singh were arrested on 19.3.2000 for prevention of breach of peace and were produced before S.D.M. Samrala on 20.3.2000. It is relevant that no case was registered against Tarsem Singh and Mohan Singh nor they were arrested in any case. This is clearly contradictory to the report of the Warrant Officer. 5. Mr. Chopra has vehemently argued that since the filing of the habeas corpus petition, petitioner and his family members are being consistently harassed by the respondent i.e. Ram Singh, Sub Inspector SHO Police Station Sadar Khanna, District Ludhiana. The learned counsel has pointed out that although according to the reply the alleged detenues were arrested on 19.3.2000 for prevention of breach of peace yet these very persons are sought to be now prosecuted in FIR which is stated to be of dated 17.3.2000. In the reply, no mention has been made of registration of any earlier case. Learned counsel also submits that unless the matter is thoroughly proved, it would give a free handles to respondent No. 1 to continue harassing the petitioner and the alleged detenues and their family members. 6. Keeping in view the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the District and Sessions Judge, Ludhiana is hereby directed to have the disputed facts involved in this case thoroughly examined. For this purpose, the learned District and Sessions Judge, Ludhiana, may designate any other Additional District and Sessions Judge or any Magistrate to take the evidence of all the parties and to decide as to whether or not the alleged detenues have been illegally detained and to ascertain as to whether or not the petitioner and the alleged detenues are being harassed by respondent No. 1. The District and Sessions Judge, Ludhiana, is also directed to ensure that the petitioner and his family members are not being harassed by any of the Police officials purely for the reasons that the petitioner has dared to come to the High Court by way of petition seeking issuance of a writ of Habeas Corpus. The writ petition is disposed of with the direction that if after the investigation it is found that any offence is being committed by the Police official or any other persons in connivance with the police officials, necessary proceedings will be taken against them. Orders accordingly.