Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 1708 (PNJ)

Nirmala Devi v. State of Haryana and another

2012-12-03

K.C.PURI

body2012
K. C. Puri, J.— Criminal Misc. No. 1153 of 2012. 1. Affidavit of petitioner is taken on record subject to all just exceptions. 2. C. M. stands allowed. MAIN CASE. 3. Smt. Nirmala Devi has filed the present criminal writ petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India with the prayer to issue writ in the nature of habeas corpus with the directions to the respondent Nos. 1 to 3 to produce the detenu namely Deepak son of Basti Ram before this Court on the allegation that he is illegally detained in SIT Cell Sector 7 Sonepat. 4. It is alleged by the petitioner that she is mother of Deepak and Sandeep who were staying with her along with her husband. The husband of petitioner is not keeping well. In the early morning of 14.6.2012 at about 5. 00a. m., six persons (five in civil dress and one in police uniform ) came to their house and picked up her elder son Deepak forcibly and illegally. The petitioner inquired at her own level and found that police of SIT Sector 7, Sonepat has illegally detained her son Deepak. She along with her brother-in-law (Devar) went to SIT Cell and asked the police personnel that why they had picked up her son Deepak-detenu. She was ill-treated by the police personnel of the SIT Cell and they were not allowed to see her son. 5. On his application, warrant officer was appointed and he visited the spot. Shri V. K. Gupta, Warrant Officer has reported that on 20.6.2012 he along with petitioner and her relatives entered the premises of police station and knocked the main door. No one was on Sentry duty at that time. After opening the iron gate of boundary wall, he along with petitioner and her relatives entered the premises of police station and knocked the main door. MHC Mandeep opened the main door. He disclosed his identity and asked him for Roznamcha register. He told him that he is not aware about the Roznamcha. Incharge of the police station was not present at that time. Thereafter, the undersigned enquired from MHC Mandeep about the presence of detenu Deepak but he told him that no such person has been detained in the police station. He disclosed his identity and asked him for Roznamcha register. He told him that he is not aware about the Roznamcha. Incharge of the police station was not present at that time. Thereafter, the undersigned enquired from MHC Mandeep about the presence of detenu Deepak but he told him that no such person has been detained in the police station. On this, the undersigned along with petitioner and her relatives started searching the premises of police station by shouting the name of Deepak but no response was received. During search of premises, Roznamcha register was found in the room of Inspector Pardeep Kumar. He immediately took the Roznamcha register in his possession. They also found that one room adjoining to kitchen on one side and other side to toilet was found bolted from inside. He asked the MHC Mandeep to open the room. MHC Mandeep asked ASI Suresh who was present in the room to open the door but he did not open the door of the room. Thereafter, the undersigned asked ASI Suresh Kumar repeatedly to open the door of the room but all in vain. Rather he switched off the light of the room and as he overheard from outside he was talking with someone on mobile. 6. Inspector Pardeep Kumar-Incharge of the police station reached the premises and even on his calling room was not opened by the said ASI Suresh Kumar. Thereafter, some other police officials namely SI Subhash, SI Rajpal and Driver Constable Ranvir also reached there. Though it was dark, the undersigned noticed that some persons were moving outside the boundary wall of police premises. On his going back at the back side of the room, he saw that the aforesaid three police officials namely SI Subhash, SI Rajpal and Driver Constable Ranvir were standing at the back side of the room which was bolted from inside and not opened by ASI Suresh. After some time, the room was opened from the back side and two-three persons forcibly took detenu Deepak along with them who was recognized by the petitioner. The Warrant Officer also shouted stop stop but they immediately run away under the cover of darkness. The petitioner and her relatives also raised alarm by shouting the name of Deepak-Deepak but no response was received. The Warrant Officer also shouted stop stop but they immediately run away under the cover of darkness. The petitioner and her relatives also raised alarm by shouting the name of Deepak-Deepak but no response was received. The Warrant Officer also checked the Roznamcha register of Police Station, SIT, Sector-7, Sonepat but no entry regarding arrest of Deepak was found. Thereafter, He made an entry in the roznamcha register by putting date 20.6.2012 at Sr. No. 1 at 1. 00am. 7. The notice on behalf of respondent Nos. 2 and 3 were received by MHC Mandeep. 8. Keeping in view the above report, show cause notice was issued and those officials filed reply. Thereafter the detenu-Deepak filed affidavit asserting that he was illegally confined in the room as detailed by the Warrant Officer by Suresh. He has further filed the affidavit that when the Warrant Officer entered the door constable Suresh did not open it and rather took him out of it from the back door pointing pistol at him. 4-5 police personnel were present at the back door and he was taken forcibly at pistol point. He has further stated that he heard his mother and cousin shouting his name Deepak Deepak and tried to catch him but they had thrown him to the other side over the boundary wall where 5-6 personnel were already present and they caught hold him and took him to some other undisclosed place with them forcibly. He further stated that from 14.6.2012 till 19.6.2012 he was kept in custody in SIT Cell, Sector -7, Sonepat. 9. From the affidavit of complainant as well as report of the Warrant Officer, it is clear that Deepak detenu son of Basti Ram resident of Village Liwaspur Post Office Bahadurgarh has been illegally confined from 14.6.2012 to 19.6.2012 and was given beating as per his affidavit. 10. This Court in authority Chander Kanta versus State of Punjab and another reported in 2005(1) R. C. R. (Criminal ) page 734 directed the State to pay the compensation to the detenu where he was illegally confined by the police officials. This Court further observed that concerned Superintendent of Police was directed to take disciplinary action against the guilty police officials in view of authority Sebastian M. Hongry vs. Union of India, reported in AIR 1984 SC page 1026. This Court further observed that concerned Superintendent of Police was directed to take disciplinary action against the guilty police officials in view of authority Sebastian M. Hongry vs. Union of India, reported in AIR 1984 SC page 1026. The name of ASI Suresh, SI Subhash, SI Raj Pal and constable Ranvir cropped up in the report of the Warrant Officer. Name of constable Suresh appeared in the affidavit of Deepak detenu for illegally confinement. So, in these circumstances, Superintendent of Police, Sonepat is directed to hold inquiry and take disciplinary action against the erring officer. The amount of Rs. 50,000/- which is to be paid by the State shall be recovered from the erring officer in the inquiry. 11. The petition stands disposed of accordingly.