Manpreet Singh vs State of Punjab and Others

Ranjit Singh, J.—Through this petition, petitioner, Manpreet Singh, has prayed for issuance of writ of habeas corpus for release of his grand

mother-respondent No. 6, who statedly was kept in illegal confinement at Police Station B Division, Amritsar. Prayer for appointing Warrant

Officer was also made. This Court, while issuing notice of motion, also appointed Warrant Officer with a direction to search the detenue at Police

Station B Division, Amritsar as well as at any other place to be pointed out by the petitioner. The Warrant Officer was directed to submit his

report on the adjourned date. The Warrant Officer accordingly searched for the alleged detenue and found that detenue was present in the Police

Station. The police officials present at the Police Station did make an attempt to explain her presence in a manner that she had come to enquire

about an FIR No. 175, dated 28.12.2010, and that she was not required by the police in any case. The Warrant Officer was also apprised that no

case has been registered against the detenue. The detenue, as per the police officials, was free to leave the Police Station. The old lady, aged 70

years, was accordingly permitted to leave the Police Station. When the case came up for hearing before this Court, a Criminal Misc. Application

was filed by the petitioner, which revealed very disturbing state of affair. This was so noticed by the Court in its order dated 5.1.2012. The

relevant extract thereof is reproduced below:

It is alleged that Manjit Kaur has been taken in custody soon after the departure of Warrant Officer on 29.12.2011 itself. This is stated to be done

at the behest of respondent Nos. 6 & 7. The Warrant Officer was informed about the illegal detention of Manjit Kaur as soon it was done. At that

time, Warrant Officer had reached somewhere near Kartarpur, Distt. Jalandhar. The Warrant Officer was statedly informed that respondent Nos.

4 & 5 along with respondent Nos. 6 & 7 had picked Manjit Kaur along with the petitioner. It is alleged that Manjit Kaur, who is 70 years old, is

given merciless beatings. Both Manjit Kaur and the petitioner were detained at the unknown place and they were kept in illegal custody. This was

allegedly done to take revenge for filing habeas corpus petition. Both the detenues were kept in a dark room in this manner for a night without

giving them food etc. It is disclosed that to justify this illegal action, the SHO(respondent No. 4) has registered a false FIR on 29.12.2011 under

Sections 447/ 511/ 34 IPC against Manjit Kaur and petitioner-Manpreet Singh.

Notice of this application was issued to the State counsel and the other respondents to file response to the averments made in the application.

Respondent No. 4, SHO, Police Station B Division, Amritsar, was present in person before the Court. The S.H.O. was asked to respond as his

action prima-facie appeared motivated. He submitted through State counsel that after departure of Warrant Officer, a report was received that

Manjit Kaur and the petitioner were breaking open a lock of a house, on the basis of which FIR against them was registered. The petitioner as well

as the released detenue lady were again taken in custody at 5.30 P.M. S.H.O. (respondent No. 4) further informed the Court that the lady was in

judicial custody. The State counsel at that stage pointed out that the petitioner as well as the lady detenue were released on bail, the offences being

bailable. The Court viewed this situation seriously and observed as under:-""Offences for which the petitioner and Manjit Kaur are taken into

custody just after departure of Warrant Officer admittedly are bailable. When asked to explain as to how the detenue and the petitioner were

taken in custody for offences which were bailable, the answer given by respondent No. 4 is that none came forward to furnish bail bonds for these

persons. Where was the need to arrest and take the petitioner and Manjit Kaur in custody. This apparently has been done due to spite and to

wreak vengeance. The conduct and the action of respondent No. 4 is not only highly objectionable, but illegal and arbitrary, which has exceeded

all bonds of fair plays. In fact, no words can be found to notice the impertinence on the part of respondent No. 4 to behave in this manner. He has

shown total defiance to law and being unmindful of this Court being seized of the issue, has arrogated himself to arrest the detenue got released by

Warrant Officer. He has in fact challenged the power and majesty of this Court. Within hours of departure of Warrant Officer, he has again

arrested old lady and this time the petitioner as well by registering bailable case against them. It is quite obvious and clear that this is done by the

SHO (respondent No. 4) by exceeding his authority and by showing scant respect to this Court. He appears to be carrying an attitude of, ""he

cares too hoots for judicial order or proceedings before the High Court"". Such a police officer cannot be expected to function fairly and

independently. A case may be made out for initiating disciplinary as well as criminal proceedings against respondent No. 4. To ensure fair inquiry

against him and also for initiating criminal action, it would be just to relieve him of his appointment as S.H.O. Police Station B-Division, Amritsar.

More appropriate would be to place him under suspension for showing scorn to the proceeding pending before this Court.

Consequently, enquiry against SHO, Police Station B Division, Amritsar, was initiated. In the meanwhile, Nadanjit Kaur, who is accused in the

FIR No. 175 dated 28.12.2010 was taken in custody for an offence u/s 302 IPC as Special Investigation Team constituted to enquire into the said

FIR had found her blame-worthy. She was accused of committing murder of her husband, who is son of the lady detenue, whose release was

sought. Respondent No. 4 was placed under suspension. The key of the house in dispute was taken in custody by the police. Directions were

issued to hand over the keys of the house to the detenue, who was mother of the person who was killed, leading to registration of FIR No. 175.

During the course of further hearing on different dates, it revealed that the house in dispute was being occupied by the deceased husband of the

accused in FIR No. 175 and son of the detenue and both the ladies were claimants of the house and were also claiming to be in possession

thereof. Accordingly, directions were issued to hand over the keys of the house to the Commissioner Police, Amritsar, and parties were given

liberty to approach the Civil Court or any appropriate authority to establish their possession or right to claim possession of the house in accordance

with law. Enquiry report in the meantime was taken on record. The case was adjourned for filing of the status report in regard to the enquiry

against the SHO.

On July 23, 2012, the State counsel informed the Court that the house, which is in dispute was partially being used as residence and partly to

run a factory. Only the residential portion of the house was locked and issue was before the Court. The ground portion has been given on rent by

the deceased. Otherwise the charge of murder had been framed against the wife, who was accused of the murder. The Court directed the

arrangement to continue as was made till the Civil Court decided the pending dispute between the parties. The Commissioner of Police was given

liberty to hand over the keys of upper portion of the house to a person, who ultimately is held entitled to the possession of that portion. It was also

intimated that proceedings against SHO, respondent No. 4, had been concluded. He was found guilty and imposed a punishment of stoppage of

two increments on temporary basis.

Since the basic relief claimed in the petition for release of the detenue alleged to be illegally detained had been satisfied and the case was kept

pending primarily to ensure that proper action is taken against the SHO, who had violated the law and has defied the orders passed by the Court,

no further purpose apparently is left now to keep the petition pending. The detenue or the petitioner would be at liberty to take action, if they have

a grievance about their illegal detention. They would also be at liberty to file any proceedings against the SHO, respondent No. 4, for initiating a

criminal action for illegal detention or registering the case against them, if it is false etc. The writ petition, however, is disposed of.