Kamaljit Kaur vs State of Punjab

K.S. Kumaran, J.

Kamaljit Kaur wife of Sukhdev Singh has approached this Court with this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the issuance of a writ of Habeas Corpus against the respondents directing them to produce the above said Sukhdev Singh, the alleged detainee or to get an investigations by the Central Bureau of Investigation with regard to the allegations made in this petition.

The allegations in this petition in brief are as follows :

Petitioner''s husbandSukhdev Singh (hereinafter referred to as the detainee) was a transporter and also the owner of a petrol pump at Chamkor Saheb. On 18.2.1993, the then S.H.O. of Police Station, Sohana, Ramesh Chander, who was on friendly terms with the detainee, came to the house of the petitioner when the detainee and his friendJaspal Singh were sitting together. The S.H.O. Ramesh Chander called the detainee to the Police Station, Sohana. The detainee, after informing the petitioner, left for the Police Station, Sohana along with Jaspal Singh, but, after reaching the police station, Jaspal Singh was sent back and the detainee was detained at the police station, since, according to Ramesh Chander, the then Senior Superintendent of Police Sanjiv Gupta, (secondrespondent) wanted to talk with the detainee.

The detainee was detained in the said police station from 18.2.1993 to 28.2.1993, during which period Surjit Singh, the younger brother of the detainee, visited the police station almost daily for providing food and clothes to the detainee. Inspector Ramesh Chander assured the petitioner and her family that no harm will be caused to the detainee.

On 28.2.1993, the detainee has handed over to the Incharge of CIA Staff, Ropar and remained there till 29.4.1993 during which period the detainee was tortured by S.S. Batra, the then Superintendent of Police (Operation), Ropar (thirdrespondent). The detainee was brought back to Police Station, Sohana on 29.4.1993 and was detained there till 4.7.1993, during which period also Surjit Singh used to meet the detainee, who informed Surjit Singh that the third respondent threatened to kill him.

After 4.7.1993, the detainee was taken to the CIA Staff, Ropar by the then Incharge of Police Station, Sohana, Jagtar Singh (respondent5), and subsequently his whereabouts are not known. The local M.L.A. of Chamkor Sahab, at the instance of the family, approached the then Senior Superintendent of PoliceSanjiv Gupta (second respondent) to get the detainee released, to whom Sanjiv Gupta (respondent2) had admitted the detention and promised to release the detainee after interrogation. Malkeet Singh son of Basava Singh was also detained in the police custody of CIA Staff, Ropar at the time when Sukhdev Singh had been detained, and he had met the detainee on 5.7.1993 when Mohinder Singh, D.S.P. took Sukhdev Singh with him from the CIA Staff, Ropar.

In the first week of May, 1993, InspectorRamesh Chander had come to the house of the petitioner, returned the old clothes of the detainee and had taken fresh clothes. He also promised the petitioner to make the detainee contact the family over phone. On 6.5.1993, the detainee had called and talked with the family members including the petitioner, over phone.

The petitioner has been approaching the police officials for the last three years and had also moved a representation to the D.G.P., Punjab. The lapse of time has created doubt in the minds of the family members that the detainee is being withheld by the police at some unknown place or the detainee has lost life during the process of torture by the respondents.

With these allegations, the petitioner has approached this Court with this writ petition.

On notice, respondent 4 and 5 have filed separate replies. The 4th respondent has alleged that he never called the detainee and has denied that the detainee was kept in the Police Station, Sohana from 18.2.1993 to 28.2.1993, or that he was handed over to the CIA Staff, Ropar on 28.2.1993. This respondent has also denied about the arranging telephone call and about the returning of the clothes.

The 5th respondent has in his reply stated among other things that the petitioner has given the first complaint dated 13.7.1995 addressed to the Hon''ble Chief Minister and others mentioning about the disappearance of her husband and praying that he should be released from Sanjiv Gupta, the then S.S.P. and others (copy annexure R5), but his name has not been mentioned there. According to him, during this tenure, Surjit Singh never visited the police station to see the alleged detainee.

I have heard the counsel for both the sides and perused the record.

Of course, the contention of the petitioner is that her husband was taken away to the Police Station, Sohana by the then S.H.O. Ramesh Chander (4th respondent) on 18.2.1993 itself and that he was being detained at one police station or the other. Accordingly to her, the whereabouts of the detainee are not known after 5.7.1993, but, she has given the first complaint only on 13.7.1995. The explanation given by her was that the then S.H.O. Ramesh Chander was on friendly terms with her husband and even used come to their house. According to her, he even promised that no harm shall be caused to the detainee. But in these proceedings, I am of the view that the delay in lodging the complaint shall not be made a ground to reject the request of the petitioner to get her husband located. The affidavits filed by Surjit Singh, Shamsher Singh, Malkeet Singh and Jaspal Singh prima facie support the case of the petitioner. But respondents 2 to 5, who are police officials, have denied the alleged detention, and also the other allegations made by the petitioner that then S.H.O. had even exchanged the old clothes of the detainee for the new clothes and that he had even made the detainee call the members of his family and talk to them over phone. In these circumstances, I am of the view that the request of the petitioner that the Central Bureau of Investigation should conduct investigation into the allegations made in this petition, is justified.

Accordingly, the Central Bureau of Investigation is directed to take up investigation of the allegations made in this petition and file its report within a period of four months. The Registry will furnish a copy of this petition with its annexures to the C.B.I.

List this petition on 11.1.1999 awaiting the report of the C.B.I.