Charanjit Singh vs Inspector Gurdev Singh

Ujagar Singh, J.

This petition in the nature of habeas corpus directing the respondents to produce one Ranjit Singh resident of 63, Sewa Nagar, Amritsar was filed by the petitioner on 9th March, 1988. The same day, notice was issued for production of Ranjit Singh, and a warrant officer was appointed for search of the detenu in P.S. Sadar Amritsar and Police Post Vijay Nagar under the said Police Station or any other place that may be pointed out by the petitioner. The warrant officer accompanied by the petitioner went to Amritsar the same day at 4.35 p.m. and reached there at about 2.15 p.m. In the morning on 10th March, 1988, the petitioner went to various police stations/police posts to find out the whereabouts of the alleged detenu. In the meantime, the warrant Officer stayed at the house of the petitioner. The petitioner came back at 4.30 p.m. and told the warrant officer that the alleged detenu was in the lockup of Police Post Sultanwind and they reached there at 5.15 p.m. The warrant officer disclosed his identity and the purpose of his visit and asked the petitioner to call the alleged detenu by name and in a loud voice. After hearing the call, Ranjit Singh detenu was found present in the lockup. A wireless operator who was sitting on the seat of Moharrir Head Constable did not disclose his name. The warrant officer after disclosing his identity and the purpose of his coming asked him to give the roznamcha but instead the wireless operator took away the roznamcha and refused to hand it over to him, telling that the same would be given on the arrival of the Incharge of the police post. The warrant officer gave him a threat for consequences of the noncompliance. The wireless operator put the roznamcha on the table and the warrant officer made necessary entry therein regarding his arrival, presence of the alleged detenu and his departure. During his presence there, the wireless operator sent a wireless message to the Police Station Sadar Amritsar about the visit of the Warrant Officer and asked him to send Shri Gurmit Chand, Sub Inspector in charge Police Post Sultanwind, immediately. The warrant office tried to come out of the Police Post but the said wireless operator and one Constable Ajaib Singh did not allow him to come out and asked him to stay there till the arrival of Gurmit Chand. The Warrant Officer stayed there and the operator told him that the alleged detenue had been brought out from Vijay Nagar a day before, i..e, on 9th March, 1988. Shri Gurmit Chand came there after about half an hour and on asking of the Warrant Officer informed him that the alleged detenu had been arrested by Sh. Mohinder Singh, ASI, of Police Station Sadar Amritsar in some robbery case and had been sent there at about 4.30 p.m. on 10th March, 1988, for interrogation. Absence of entry in the roznamcha to this effect was admitted by the Sub Inspector. The Warrant Officer then left for the Police Station Sadar for service of warrants on respondents No. 2 and 3 and he was accompanied by Sh. Gurmit Chand. They reached there at 6.55 p.m. and found Shri Gurdev Singh, Inspector present and the summons were served on him. Shri Joginder Singh also received the summons on behalf of ASI Mohinder Singh and ASI Swaran Singh. Inspector Gurdev Singh informed the warrant officer that the alleged detenu had been arrested on 10th March, 1988 in connection with FIR No. 426 dated 27th July, 1987 under Section 395 IPC, 25 of the Arms Act and Section 3/4 of the T.D. Act, relating to P.S. Sadar Amritsar, vide DDR No. 20 of that date at 3.30 p.m. and thereafter the detenu was sent to the Police Post Sultanwind for interrogation. To this effect the Warrant Officer has submitted his report which is on the file.

In reply to the allegations, ASI Mohinder Singh, Inspector Gurdev Singh and ASI Swaran Singh have tendered their respective affidavits. Copies of DDR Nos. 15, 19 and 20 of 10th March, 1988, relating to P.S. Sadar Amritsar have been placed on record. Affidavits of SI Gurmit Chand, Constable Ajaib Singh and Constable Harjinder Singh are also on record. Another affidavit of Constable Harjinder Singh was also filed.

In reply to the affidavits of the police officials, Ranjit Singh, detenu, has filed his affidavit.

In this affidavit, Ranjit Singh detenu has stated that in the month of February, 1988, he was a student of B.Com. (Final Year) and was arrested from his house at 6 a.m., on 10.2.1988, by police party consisting of Inspector Gurdev Singh, ASI Mohinder Singh, ASI Swarn Singh and other Police Officials. It is further deposed by him that he was illegally detained in Police Station Sadar, Amritsar for 7/8 days and then shifted to Police Post Vijay Nagar, Amritsar where he was shifted to Police Post Sultanwind in the evening and formal arrest was shown on 10.3.1988 after the warrant officer visited that Police Post. Upto that time, he was never produced before any Court and rather, was maltreated and tortured by the above named Police Officers. On that day also, according to this affidavit, he was involved in a false case in which he was granted bail by the Court only in August, 1988. He appeared in B.Com. (Final) Examination in April, 1988 while in Central Jail, Amritsar, but because of his nonattendance to studies and illegal custody, he failed in two papers. It is also asserted that the deponent was otherwise a brilliant student in Khasla College, Amritsar.

The petitioner''s counsel has argued that the detenu was found present in the lockup of Police Post Sultanwind which was raided at about 5.15 p.m. A wireless operator was sitting in the Chair of MHC and on asking by the Warrant Officer, refused to disclose his name inspite of the fact that the Warrant Officer had already disclosed his identity about the visit to the Police Post. The wireless operator took away the Roznamcha and refused to hand over the same to the Warrant Officer, but, later on, when the Warrant Officer told him the illegality committed by him, he brought the Roznamcha and placed it at the table. Thereafter, the Warrant Officer made an entry therein. The wireless operator sent a wireless message in presence of the warrant officer to Police Station Sadar, Amritsar regarding Warrant Officer''s arrival and asked the MHC of the said Police Station to send SI Gurmit Chand. When the Warrant Officer tried to get out of the Police Post, the wireless Operator and Constable Ajaib Singh did not allow him to do so and asked him to stay there till the arrival of the said SI Gurmit Chand. In this way, the learned Counsel for the petitioner argues that it is a clear case of illegal custody and for such a highhandedness, the Police officers responsible are liable for deterrent punishment.

The learned Counsel for the respondents mainly relied upon Roznamcha entry No. 15 of Police Station Sadar, Amritsar. Vide this entry, which is No. 15 dated 10.3.1988, ASI Mohinder Singh, along with Police officials Gurdial Singh, Bir Singh, Vijay Kumar, Gurdev Singh and Darshan Lal left the Police Station at 2.05 p.m. in search of Ranjit Singh son of Shri Bua Singh Saini, resident of 63, Sewa Nagar, Putlighar, Amritsar who was required in FIR No. 426/87, under Section 395 of the Indian Penal Code in pursuance of a warrant, the said Police Officials were issued one rifle and 25 rounds each and has tried to show that after the party went in search of the detenu, they were label to arrest him and came back to the Police Station video entry No. 19 of the Daily Diary Receipt at 3.05 p.m. This entry shows that the detenu was arrested after his personal search and was detained in the lockup. He further invites my attention to entry No. 20 at 3.30 p.m. of that day, showing that the detenu was taken towards Sultanwind. The learned Counsel argues that the custody of the detenu was legal when the Warrant Officer raided by the Police Post Sultanwind.

During the proceedings vide my order dated 10.3.1988, a notice was directed to be issued an served on the wireless operator who was on duty in the Police Post on the said date of raid. In pursuance thereof Constable Harjinder Singh wireless operator was directed to be present on the next date. In his affidavit, Constable Harjinder Singh admitted his presence on duty at the said time and date. He also admitted that the warrant officer had made enquire about the presence of the detenu. He was also asked to hand over Roznamcha, but he requested the warrant officer to wait for SI Gurmit Chand, but on refusal of the warrant officer, he produced the Roznamcha before him as the same was lying on the table. An additional affidavit of Harjinder Singh was also filed and therein he deposed that he was a new entrant in the police department and has 3 year''s service to his credit. He has deposed that the wireless message was sent to the SHO at the instance of the Warrant Officer and not voluntarily by him. Ultimately, he seeks mercy and has tendered unconditional apology for what is alleged to have been done.

I have considered the matter thoroughly. The Police Officials, according to their version are stated to have obtained nonbailable warrant from the Court of Shri G.S. Saran, Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Amritsar on 9.3.1988 in case FIR No. 426 dated 27.7.1987, under Section 295 of the IPC and Section 25 of the Arms Act of Police Station Sadar, Amritsar. This case related to a dacoity, alleged to have been committed in Punjab and Sind Bank, near Khalsa College, Amritsar and it is stated that during investigation the name of the detenu, having taken part in the said offence was disclosed and, therefore, his arrest was required in the said case. It is surprising that right from 27.7.1987 till 9.3.1988 the respondents did not take any step, according to their version, either to arrest the detenu or to get nonbailable warrants from the Court. Even after getting the alleged nonbailable warrants from the Court no steps are said to have been taken to arrest the detenu in pursuance thereof before the alleged departure from the Police Station at 2.05 p.m. on 10.3.1988. The reason to show this departure from the Police Station on 10.3.1988 is obvious. The present petition was filed on 9.3.1988 and immediately, a notice to produce the detenu was issued for 11.3.1988. A warrant officer was appointed for search of the detenu at Police Station Sadar and also Police Post Vijay Nagar attached to that police station or at any other place that might be pointed out by the petitioner. According to Warrant Officer''s report, he went to Amritsar with the petitioner on 9.3.1988 and reached there at about 9.15 p.m. He stayed there from the night and in the morning, the petitioner went to various police stations/police posts to find out the whereabouts of the alleged detenu. The petitioner came back at 4.30 p.m. and informed the warrant officer that the detenu was in Police Post Sultanwind. With this information, the warrant officer raided the said Police Post. What happened there has already been given in detail above. It may be noted here that when the warrant officer was in Police Post, Sultwanwind, the wireless operator told him that the alleged detenu had been brought from Police Post Vijay Nagar on 9.3.1988 and that it was their bad luck that the Police Post had been raided on 10.3.1988. SI Gurmit Chand told the Warrant Officer that the detenu had been sent to that Police Post at about 4.30 p.m. for interrogation. Thereafter the warrant officer contacted Inspector Gurdev Singh respondent at 6.55 p.m. on that very date at Police Station Sadar, Amritsar. Notice was given to him. ASI Mohinder Singh and ASI Swaran Singh were not present there. Their summons were given to MHC Joginder Singh. Warrant Officer was informed by Inspector Gurdev Singh that the alleged detenu had been arrested on 10.3.1988 in connection with the said FIR and vide Daily Diary Report No. 19 dated 10.3.1988 at 3.05 p.m. he was further informed that the said detenu had been sent to Police Post Sultwanwind vide Daily Dairy Report of that date at 3.30 p.m. for interrogation.

In this country, arrest on suspicion or otherwise is not uncommon. It is also not uncommon to eliminate certain individuals in false encounters. Police Officials, according to their own admission, had come to know the name of the detenu and with this information, it cannot be said that the Police Officials did not know about the detenu being a student of Khalsa College, Amritsar. After the information was received, no attempt is said to have been made to arrest the detenu and all of a sudden warrant of arrest was obtained only on 9.3.1988. Even after obtaining the said nonbailable warrants, before 2.05 p.m. on 10.3.1988, no police official was deputed to arrest him. The intention to obtain a nonbailable warrant on 9.3.1988 is not far to seek. The only inference which can be drawn from these circumstances is that after detention for some period, the respondents became apprehensive that they might not be hauled up through a possible raid. To avoid that situation, the respondents got nonbailable warrants to be ready answer. Nonexecution of nonbailable warrants till 2.05 p.m. further leaves no room for doubt that till the arrest of the detenu, they were trying to find out an opportunity to take the detenu to an unknown place and to do whatever they liked and thereafter making an entry in the Roznamcha and then some sort of explanation for his having disappeared. It is not possible to believe that immediately Police Party when to arrest the detenu at 2.05 p.m., the detenu was readily available at his house and the Police Party came back with him at 3.05 p.m. According to entry No. 20 and 3.30 p.m., the detenu was taken towards Sultanwind and this entry does not indicate at all that the detenu was to be kept in Police Post Sultwanwind. As against this, information given by Harjinder Singh wireless operator to the Warrant Officer was that detenu had been brought from Police Post Vijay Nagar on 9.3.1988. The only conclusion which can be drawn from this entry is that by making false entries No. 15 and 19, the detenu is said to have been taken towards Sultanwind and the particular place where he was to be taken in the area of Sultwnwind is still not disclosed. This further gives clause that the police had the intention to deal the detenu in a manner which cannot be said to be legal.

The detenu was a student of B.Com. (Final) in Khalsa College, Amritsar. He has failed in two papers in which he appeared during his arrest, may be with the permission of the Court. This loss of studies and unnecessary harassment through illegal detention may only be better imagined than actually assessed. All the three respondents have actually connived. The behaviour of the wireless operator Constable Harjinder Singh towards the Warrant Officer is only to be condemned, because, being a constable, he must have acted under the directions of the respondents who were his senior officers. He has tendered unconditional apology and the same is accepted, because he is almost a new entrant in police service. He is left with a warning to the careful in future.

The respondents are Government servants and it looks that they acted on some secret instructions from the higher authorities to arrest the detenu and keep him in detention so long as it was possible or may be to eliminaty him if possibly there was an opportunity by showing some sort of false encounter. One may never imagine the mental condition of an individual, and possible a student, especially when he has to appear in a final examination after a month or so. To what extent the allegation of torture is correct, it is not necessary to probe further into the matter in this petition. The detenu may seek his remedy before a competent Court in a regular manner either by civil or criminal proceedings or both.

It can also be well imagined about the mental condition of the parents and other relatives of the detenu. They must have been kept waiting for a time till the release of the detenu.

In view of the above discussion, I assess the compensation to be paid by the respondents at Rs. 10,000/ to be deposited by them within a month, for their act of illegally detaining the detenu and thereafter showing his arrest on 10.3.1988. The amount when deposited or recovered from all the three or any of them, be paid to the detenu. The respondents may, however, claim this amount from the State or the higher authorities if they had some instructions for their said acts.

JUDGMENT accordingly.