Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 33 (PNJ)

Raj Kumar v. State Of Haryana

2007-01-11

VINOD K.SHARMA

body2007
Judgment Vinod K.Sharma, J. 1. This criminal writ petition for issuance of a writ in the nature of Habeas Corpus has been filed by the petitioner alleging that his son, namely, Vikas, aged about 20 years was illegally detained by the police of Police Station Kalayat, District Kaithal. 2. Having regard to the nature of allegations, this Court vide order dated February 25, 2005 appointed a Warrant Officer to search out the whereabouts of the alleged detenu and to get him released forthwith in case he was found illegally detained. 3. Pursuant to the above-mentioned order, the Warrant Officer went to the Police Station, Kalayat and found the detenu present in the lock up. The Warrant Officer thereafter submitted a report dated 26.2.2005 in which it is mentioned that no case was found to have been registered against the detenu nor was lie wanted by the police officials in any other case. 4. Having regard to the report of the Warrant Officer and in order to find out as to whether the detenus detention was legal or illegal, vide order dated 17.1.2006 a fact finding enquiry was entrusted to the District & Sessions Judge, Kaithal. Pursuant thereto the District & Sessions Judge, Kaithal has submitted a self-speaking enquiry report dated 17.5.2006 wherein he has concluded that the detenu was illegally detained as the prerequisites laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of D.K.Basu v. State of Bengal, 1997(1) All India Criminal LR (S.C.) 417: 1998 (1) SC 416, before effecting arrest of a person, were not complied with by Sub Inspector Ashok Kumar. 5. The afore-mentioned conclusion has been drawn by the learned District & Sessions Judge, Kaithal after taking note of the fact that the petitioners son was summoned by the police in relation to investigation of F.I.R.No.19 of 2005 which pertains to alleged theft of computers, mobile phones and sim cards etc. 6. The record reveals that one or two such like cases were registered earlier against the petitioners son, namely, Vikas, in different police stations and as per the stand taken by the respondents, petitioners son was summoned in this case also for the purpose of interrogation as the complainant had suspected his involvement in the case. 7. 6. The record reveals that one or two such like cases were registered earlier against the petitioners son, namely, Vikas, in different police stations and as per the stand taken by the respondents, petitioners son was summoned in this case also for the purpose of interrogation as the complainant had suspected his involvement in the case. 7. While summoning a suspect in the course of enquiry/investigation of a frivolous case, like that of a theft in the present case, it can be satisfactorily explained by the police authorities that those who can be prime facie suspected to be involved in such type of offence were required to be summoned and interrogated so as to take the investigation to its logical conclusion, however, this does not absolve the police authorities from their legal obligation to strictly comply with the mandate of the Honble Supreme Court in D.K.Basus case (supra). If such a suspect is required to be interrogated by detaining him in the police station, it shall amount to his arrest for all intents and purposes, therefore, it becomes imperative upon the Investigating Officer or SHO of the police station concerned to minutely comply with the directions issued in D.K. Basus case. 8. The enquiry report of the learned District & Sessions Judge, Kaithal clearly suggests that Sub Inspector Ashok Kumar had failed to comply with those mandatory conditions. At the same time, it cannot be said that summoning of the petitioners son for the purpose of investigation of F.I.R.No.19 dated 18.2.2005 under Sections 457, 380 IPC registered in Police Station, Kalayat District Kaithal, was per se illegal. However Sub Inspector Ashok Kumar was obligated to prepare an arrest memo: to inform Vikass family members and thereafter to produce him before the Court of competent jurisdiction within 24 hours. He has been found guilty of not complying with the aforesaid mandatory provision. 9. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and having regard to the attending circumstances. I am of the view that Sub Inspector Ashok Kumar cannot be completely absolved of his official responsibility, therefore, he is liable to compensate the petitioner for initiation of these proceedings. He has been found guilty of not complying with the aforesaid mandatory provision. 9. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and having regard to the attending circumstances. I am of the view that Sub Inspector Ashok Kumar cannot be completely absolved of his official responsibility, therefore, he is liable to compensate the petitioner for initiation of these proceedings. Consequently, this petition is disposed of with a direction by imposing the costs of Rs.5,000/- upon Sub Inspector Ashok Kumar, which is directed to pay to the petitioner within a period of one month from today, failing which the petitioner shall be entitled to get this petition revived.