High Courts

Arvind Kumar Bhalla vs Gurbachan Singh, Inspector, Incharge CIA Staff, and ors.

Punjab And Haryana At Chandigarh · Decided on 24 August 1987 · Citation: (1988) 1 RCR(Criminal) 7

HON’BLE JUDGES
Harbans Singh Rai, J
CASE NUMBER
Criminal Writ Petition No. 1027 of 1987
Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

No AI summary yet

Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.

Judgment

9 paragraphs · 1,004 words

Harbans Singh, Rai, J.

1.

This petition of Habeas Corpus was filed by Arvind Kumar Bhalla for the release of his brother, Ashok Kumar Bhalla from the illegal detention of the respondents.

2.

The petitioner has alleged that he along with his brother Ashok Kumar is a coproprietor of Bhalla Ornaments House, Bhattanwali Gali, Jalandhar. They have a dispute with one Ravi Kumar, involving an amount of Rs. 80,000/ add Arvind Kumar Bhalla being an influential person and having intimate relations with the respondents managed to get Ashok Kumar detained by the respondents.

3.

A Warrant Officer was appointed vide order dated 15th August, 1987. The Warrant Officer visited the Police Station. CIA Staff, Jullundur, at 7.15 P.M. on 17th August, 1987. The Warrant Officer found that detenu Ashok Kumar was sitting in a room near the Langar room of the Police Station. He went to that room and the detenu was identified by the petitioner. The Warrant Officer further reports that immediately thereafter some persons in civil dress who appeared to be police officials rushed to me and closed the door of the room in which the detenu along with other persons were sitting. The Warrant Officer was taken to the room of the S.H.O. by S.I. Mohinder Singh, and the petitioner Arvind Kumar was asked to leave the Police Station. The version of the Police as given to the Warrant Officer by S. I. Mohinder Singh was that the detenu arrived in the Police Station shortly before the arrival of the Warrant Officer. The detenu hesitatingly supported the version of the Police in writing. The detenu told the Warrant Officer that he was in detention for the last few days in spite of the fact that he is on anticipatory bail granted by the Court of Sessions and he has also been tortured. The detenu further stated that due to fear of the Police, he has given in writing that he came just now in the Police Station.

4.

Reply has been filed by the respondents. The stand taken by the respondents is that Ashok Kumar Bhalla, alleged detenu, had applied for anticipatory bail in the Court of Sessions Judge, Jullundur in a burglary case registered in Police Station, Division No. 2, Jalandhar and his arrest was stayed by the learned Sessions Judge, Jullundur, on 16th August, 1987. It is stated further in the reply that Ashok Kumar Bhalla had come in the CIA Staff, Jalandhar, to inform the Police that he had been granted adinterm bail and at that very moment, the Warrant Officer deputed by this Court, reached the CIA Staff Jalandhar, and Ashok Kumar Bhalla was found present in the CIA Staff by the Warrant Officer. In the reply, it is further stated that the Warrant Officer made enquiries from Ashok Kumar Bhalla regarding his presence in the CIA Staff and Ashok Kumar Bhalla had given in writing that he has come of his own to the CIA Staff and that the respondents never tortured Ashok Kumar Bhalla as well as the petitioner.

5.

Ashok Kumar Bhalla, alleged detenu has filed an affidavit stating that on l3th August, 1987 at about 4 P.M. when he was working in the shop with his brother, the respondents came to the shop and took him with them and since that time, he was illegally detained and tortured by the Police in the C.I. D. Staff Jullundur. He was got released only on the intervention of the Warrant Officer appointed by this Hon''ble Court.

6.

It is further stated in the affidavit by Shri Ashok Kumar Bhalla that on 15th August, 1987 he was made to sit along with some other persons in a room near the Langar building. It was evening time. The Warrant Officer reached there and asked his brother to identify him and he identified him. It is further stated that some Police officials in plain clothes closed the door of room from inside and then they threatened him with death if he said anything to the Warrant Officer or anybody else regarding his detention or torture and be was forced to give the statement that he had come to the Police Station of his own. It is further in his affidavit that Police Station, Division No. 2 is situated at a distance of about one kilometer from the headquarters of the CIA Staff and there was no occasion for him to go the headquarters of the CIA Staff for any purpose and he had intimated the factum of grant of anticipatory bail to the Police Station Division No. 2 but inspite of this, he was tortured and detained by the respondents illegally from 13th August, 1987 to 15th August, 1987 till the Warrant Officer got him released and the statement made by him to the Warrant Officer was the result of threat to his life given by the respondents and their accomplices.

7.

I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the affidavits filed by the parties. The version put up by the respondents that Ashok Kumar Bhalla had come of his own accord to the CIA staff does not appear to be correct, and if be had come of his own accord then there is no reason why the door should be closed on the arrival of the Warrant Officer appointed by this Court and he made to give a statement exonerating the respondents which is disowned by him immediately after. The conduct of the respondents is not above board.

8.

The detenu having been found in the Police Station and the explanation furnished by the respondents being not satisfactory and appearing to be false, I feel the detenu is entitled to get compensation for illegal detention from the respondents. I fix the compensation at Rs. 2,000/. Rs. 1,000/ will be given by Gurbachan Singh, Inspector, respondent No. 1 and Rs. 500/ each by Sukhwant Singh, S.I. respondent No. 2 and Mangal Singh, A.S.I., respondent No. 3. This petition is allowed in these terms.