Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 1355 (PNJ)

Shakuntla Devi v. State of Haryana

2010-04-01

A.N.JINDAL

body2010
JUDGMENT A.N.Jindal, J. (Oral).:- The petitioner has preferred this petition for issuance of a writ in the nature of Habeas Corpus, for appointment of Warrant Officer, for getting released the alleged detenue namely Anti Ram, as mentioned in the head note of the petition,from the illegal detention of respondents No.2 to 4. 2. Notices, Annexures R-3 and R-4, under Section 160 Cr.P.C. were issued to Anti Ram son of Ram Chander (herein referred as ‘the detenue’) and Satish Kumar son of Manohar Lal on 29.07.2009 to appear before Halka Officer, Police Station Gharaunda on 30.07.2009, in connection with the case FIR No.244 dated 26.07.2009, under Sections 365/376/506 IPC, registered against Kuldeep son of Anti Ram detenue. However, on the same day i.e. 29.07.2009, Shakuntla Devi, cousin of the detenue, filed a petition for release of the detenue on the ground that he was illegally detained by the officers of Police Station Gharaunda. 3. While believing the averments to be correct, this Court vide order dated 30.07.2009, appointed a Warrant Officer, who visited the premises in question and made his report dated 31.07.2009 that Kuldeep son of the detenue was absconding in the aforesaid case and was yet to be arrested. The detenue as well as Satish Kumar were summoned in connection with aforesaid case, as such the Warrant Officer had opined that detenue was not found in illegal custody as he was standing with general public in the verandah of the building/police station. He further observed that it appeared to be a counter blast to put pressure on the police to get rid of the case registered against the son of detenue. However, this Court, in order to find out as to why detenue alongwith his wife and minor child was found in the Police Station at 8:00 p.m., ordered the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Karnal to investigate into the matter and submit his report. At this, Chief Judicial Magistrate, Karnal, after holding an inquiry into the matter, submitted the detailed report dated 11.11.2009 as under:- “With the above discussion and detailed evidence on the file, it is submitted that the report of Warrant Officer is correct and there was no illegal detention of Anti Ram, his wife alongwith small kid on the alleged date. At this, Chief Judicial Magistrate, Karnal, after holding an inquiry into the matter, submitted the detailed report dated 11.11.2009 as under:- “With the above discussion and detailed evidence on the file, it is submitted that the report of Warrant Officer is correct and there was no illegal detention of Anti Ram, his wife alongwith small kid on the alleged date. In the last, it is also submitted that it was late as upto 8:00 p.m., ASP, Karnal had not visited police station and he had disclosed this fact due to consuming of some time in the inspection of Police Station, Taraori, on that day, he could not be free by that time. The Press Reporter and Ex-Sarpanch Ravinder Singh of village Malakpur had also knowledge of the visit of ASP, Karnal on that day when they were present in the Police Station.” 4. Still dissatisfied, learned counsel for the petitioner has insisted upon the respondents to produce the original of Annexures R-3 & R-4 in the Court in order to find out if detenue was actually summoned in the police station. The respondents have shown me the original notices Annexures R3 & R4. Both Annexures R3 & R-4 were issued against the detenue Anti Ram and Satish Kumar (complainant). Annexure R-4 clearly bears the signatures of Satish Kumar. However, thumb impression of detenue on the notice Annexure R-3 appears to be blurred one. Mere fact that the thumb impression of detenue became blurred on account of having more ink on the thumb does not falsify the case. 5. Thus, the net result is that detenue was summoned pursuant to the notice dated 29.07.2009 in connection with the FIR No.244 dated 26.07.2009, registered against Kuldeep son of the detenue for 30.07.2009 but apprehending that he has been called illegally, this petition has been filed on the same day i.e. 29.07.2009 obviously for the reasons best known to the petitioner. 6. Resultantly, while agreeing with the findings of inquiry made by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Karnal and in view of the fact that detenue Anti Ram was not in illegal custody of respondents on 30.07.2009 or thereafter, this petition is dismissed. Consequently, no action is called for on the applications received per post. ------------