Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2002 DIGILAW 21 (PNJ)

Mohan Singh v. Jaswinder Singh Mangat

2002-01-04

V.M.JAIN

body2002
Judgment V.M.Jain, J. 1. This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, for the issuance of a writ of Habeas Corpus directing the respondents to produce Karnail Singh before the Court and for the appointment of a Warrant Officer, alleging therein that Karnail Singh was in the illegal custody of the Police Officers (respondent Nos. 1 to 4). 2. Warrant Officer was appointed. He submitted his report dated 6.8.1998. In the said report, it was alleged that he along with the petitioner, visited CIA staff, Patiala, on 31.8.1998 and after disclosing his identity, he entered the main gate of the Police Station. It was alleged that he along with the petitioner searched for Karnail Singh, detenu, in various rooms. It was alleged that he was informed by the incharge of the CIA Staff that Karnail Singh @ Kaka along with others was wanted in FIR 121 dated 28.7.1998 under Sections 382/34, IPC of Police Officers, Julkan, and that they were absconding. It was alleged that while they were on their way to Police Station, Julkan, they stopped at Police Officers, Bhunarheri, and reached there at 9.20 p.m. or 31.7.1998 in order to search the detenu. It was alleged that on their arrival at the said Police Post, he disclosed his identity to the incharge there. It was alleged that the petitioner called the name of the detenu loudly, upon which, he responded from inside the Police Post. Thereupon, door of the Police Post was opened and Karnail Singh @ Kaka along with one lady namely Sinderpal Kaur @ Chhindo, came out of the Police Post. It was alleged that the incharge of the Police Post told the Warrant Officer that Karnail Singh was not wanted by them in any case of the said Police Post, even though he and aforesaid Sinderpal Kaur were wanted in the aforesaid FIR No. 121 of Police Station, Julkan, and that the SHO of the said Police Officers had left them in the said Police Post at 11.30 a.m. on 31.7.1998. It was alleged that they were got released from the detention and were made to sit in the van. It was alleged that thereafter, both Karnail Singh and Sinderpal Kaur were left at their house at Patiala and thereafter, he returned back to Chandigarh. 3. Replies were also filed by various Police Officials. It was alleged that they were got released from the detention and were made to sit in the van. It was alleged that thereafter, both Karnail Singh and Sinderpal Kaur were left at their house at Patiala and thereafter, he returned back to Chandigarh. 3. Replies were also filed by various Police Officials. Vide order dated 9.2.1999, this Court had directed the District and Sessions Judge, Patiala, to hold a fact finding inquiry with regard to the circumstances in which Karnail Singh and Sinderpal Kaur had come to the custody of the Police Post, Bhunarheri and why no entry was made in the said Police Post in the Roznamcha report their arrival in the said Police Post. In pursuance thereof, the learned District and Sessions Judge, Patiala submitted the inquiry report dated 14.10.2000. As per the said inquiry report, a case under Sections 382/34, IPC was already registered in Police Station, Julkan, in which both the abovesaid detenus were the accused, besides others. It was also found that they were apprehended on 31.7.1998 at 10 a.m. It was further reported that formal arrest of these persons was not shown by SI Amarjit Singh either in the Police Station on in the Police Post by concerned officials. It was further reported that in this manner, SI Amarjit Singh, SHO, Police Station, Julkan, had defaulted in not showing the formal arrest of these persons and not making any entry in the DDR of the Police Station and the Police Post. It was also reported that HC Sohan Singh (MHC of Police Post Bhunarheri) also defaulted in not making entry in the DDR about the arrival of SI Amarjit Singh and lodging Karnail Singh and Sinderpal Kaur in the lock-up, when there was no lady lock-up there. It was reported that SI Amarjit Singh and HC Sohan Singh had committed irregularity in not completing the record about the detention of these persons. 4. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and gone through the record carefully. 5. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that contempt proceedings may be initiated against SI Amarjit Singh and Constable Sohan Singh. 6. 4. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and gone through the record carefully. 5. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that contempt proceedings may be initiated against SI Amarjit Singh and Constable Sohan Singh. 6. After hearing counsel for the parties and perusing the record, in my opinion, no further action is required to be taken in the present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India or in the application under Section 482, Cr.P.C., filed by the petitioner for initiating contempt proceedings against SI Amarjit Singh and Constable Sohan Singh. 7. However, the petitioner and/or Karnail Singh and Sinderpal Kaur, however, would be at liberty to take any other recourse to law available to them, if so advised, including the proceedings under the Contempt of Courts Act in accordance with law. However, no further orders are required to be passed in the present petition the same stands disposed of accordingly. Order accordingly.