Parshotam Dass vs The State of Punjab and others

Gopal Singh, J.—This is habeas corpus petition by Parshotam Dass on behalf of two detenues Moti Sagar and his son Yash Pall said to have been illegally detained at the Police Station, Jagraon by the Station House Officer of that Police Station. It is stated in the petition that they were being unlawfully detained from the night of March 15, 1969 up till the time the petition was presented on March 17, 1969. Jindra Lal J., by his order dated March 17, 1969, issued rule nisi to the Station House Officer. At the time of preliminary hearing, It was represented on behalf of the detenus that in order to avoid illegal detention going undetected, some officer of the High Court be deputed to accompany the petitioner and to see if the detenus were being so detained Apart from the rule nisi being issued, the Superintendent of Criminal Branch of the High Court was deputed to accompany the petitioner and to make search of the premises of the Police Station and to see if the detenus were being detained.

The Superintendent of the High Court reached the Police Station at 8.15 p.m. on March 17, 1969. In the premises of the Police Station, both the Superintendent and the petitioner shouted aloud the names of the detenus but there was no response to the shouts. Thereafter, they made thorough search of the premises of the Police Station. While shouting again. Yash Pall detenu responded to shout from a corner of the Police Station. He responded to the shout in a bewailing manner. Moti Sagar also replied to the shout from a room in which he was sitting with Gurdip Singh, Deputy Superintendent of Police. It is stated that when the Superintendent entered the room, Moti Sagar was looking perplexed,

The Superintendent found that there was no entry about the arrival in or departure from the Police Station in the daily diary showing that the detenus had been called for interrogation. Moti Sagar detenu stated to the Superintendent as has been recorded by him in writing, that he and his son Yash Pall had been called to the Police Station on March 15, 1969 that they had been handcuffed, that they had been taken to Police Station, Khanna by Manphul Singh, Inspector of Police and Session House Officer, Khanna in a Jeep, that they had been detained and beaten there by the Police till the evening on March 17, 196;) when they were brought back to the Police Station. Jagraon only 15 minutes before the arrival of the Superintendent from the High Court and that they were not allowed to sleep. He also stated that when he heard the shouts of his being called by his name, he was prevented from responding to the shouts on pain of being shot down. Yash Pall detenu repeated what was stated by Moti Sagar. He further added that urine was poured into his mouth by the Station House Officer, Khanna. In ins statement to the Superintendent, he also said that when he heard the shouts, he was prevented from making any response to the shouts and was told that dire consequence of his being killed would follow if he responded to them.

Pritam Singh sub-Inspector, who is Station House Officer at Police Station, Jagron has in his affidavit in reply stated that he neither called the detenus for interrogation nor he knew anything about their having been detained and that Gurdip Singh, Deputy Superintendent of Police was incharge of the investigation and he was dealing with the case of report No. 64 dated March 12, 1969 registered at the Police Station u/s 5 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 against Shri Lachhman Singh Gill and that he saw the detenus sitting with the Superintendent in the reporting room of the Police Station at 8.30 p.m. on March 17, 1969. The detenus were produced today in Court by Pritam Singh.

Gurdip Singh, Deputy Superintendent of Police, in his affidavit has stated that he sent for Moti Sagar for interrogation in connection with the said case on March 13 and 14, 1969. He also states that he sent for both the detenus on March 15, 1959, March 16, 1969. and March 17 1969. He adds that the detenus had been summoned in Police Station for interrogation on March 17, 1969 at 4.55 p m. and that at the time the Superintendent arrived in the Police Station at about 8.30 p.m.. interrogation of Moti Sagar was going on.

In the premises of the above facts, the question which arises for determination is whether the detenus were being improperly or illegally detained at the Police Station or were there only lor the limited purpose of interrogation as is contended on behalf of the respondents. The detailed report submitted by the superintendent giving graphic description of what exactly he saw and transpired after his arrival at the Police Station leaves no doubt that the detenus were being illegally detained. If the detenus were there in the Police Station for the legitimate purpose of enabling the Police to interrogate them, they would not have been surreptitiously detained. Soon after the arrival of the Superintendent, it would not have been difficult for him to locate them either in the reporting room of the Police Station or in its compound or anywhere else where their presence could not have been rendered alusine to ascertain and the necessity of making shouts in the names of the detenus would not have arisen. When shouts in the names of both the detenus were made initially both by the Superintendent and the petitioner, there was no response. Every nook and coiner, as the Superintendent describes in his report, was searched and yet the search did not yield the detection of the presence of the detenus. Another attempt was made to shout aloud at first the name of Yash Pall It is stated in the report by the Superintendent that he responded in a bewailing manner. This is how the presence of Yash Pall was discovered. Another loud shout was given in the name of Moti Sagar. This time Moti Sagar also responded to the shout. On going to the room from where the response emanated, Moti Sagar was found sitting in the room in which Gurdip Singh, Deputy Superintendent of Police, was present. It was claimed by the Deputy Superintendent of Police that both the detenus were in the Police Station for the purpose of interrogation in connection with the investigation of the above referred to case

In order to check up if that could be a fact the Superintendent went through the daily diary register and found no entry showing their having been ever summoned for the purpose of interrogation. From the date of the Report, which was made on March 12, 1969, up to March 17 1959, no entry was made in the daily diary showing the time and date of arrival of either of the detenus in the Police Station or their departure from the Police Station after they had been interrogated Had they been really there in connection with the mere interrogation from March 15, 1969 to March 17, 1969 from time to time and not unlawfully detained, there is no reason why the entries to the effect of their having been summoned for interrogation should not have been existent.

According to the statements made by both the detenus soon after they were released from the custody of the Police, they gave the details of their having been handcuffed on March 15, 1969, having been taken to Khanna by Manphul Singh, Inspector Police and Station House Officer, Khanna. third degree method, of torture, as is stated by them, having been committed upon them there and having not been allowed even to sleep during the three days of March 15 to March 17, 1969 when they were detained in Police Station. The Police fell low to the extent of pouring urine in the mouth of Yash Pall detenu. I am satisfied that the statements, which they made immediately after their release from their illegal detention by the Police at the Police Station, Jagraon ring with truth and I do not doubt in the least that the Superintendent correctly and faithfully reproduced what they stated. There is nothing in the affidavit of Gurdip Singh to deny the correctness of the report made by the Superintendent. The Superintendent of this Court is a gazetted Officer and is an independent witness. There is no reason to doubt the correctness of what he has stated about the details of the circumstances under which the detenus were being detained and how exactly he discovered their presence and had access to them. Similarly, no affidavit has been filed on behalf of Manphul Singh, Station House Officer, Khanna to repudiate the statements made by the two detenus to the Superintendent and appended to his report If these detenus were being detained for the only and lawful purpose of interrogation in the case, they could be interrogated either in the reporting room or some other room or in the open but not in a concealed place and clandestine manner The fact that the detenus were not allowed to respond to the calls of the Superintendent and the petitioner in the beginning on the dire consequence of their being shot down and killed if they did so shows that the purpose of their detention was not so innocent as it is now pleaded to be.

In rule 25.2, Volume III of the Punjab Police Rules, it is provided that a Police Officer making an investigation should invariably issue an order in writing in Form 25.2(1) to any person summoned to attend such investigation and shall endorse on the copy of the order retained by the person so summoned the date and time of his arrival and the date and time of his departure from the place to which he is summoned. The duplicate of the order shall be attached to the case diary. As given in the prescribed form such summons has to be addressed to the person sought to be summoned specifying the particulars of the offence reported to have been committed. In that summons, the time and the date when and the place where he is to give such information has specifically to be mentioned. It has to be signed and dated by the police officer issuing the same. After the person so summoned has appeared and given the information, it any, sought to be obtained, the time at the date on and the place at which he attended and was permitted to leave have to be mentioned. Below the particulars pertaining to the time of attendance and departure, the Police Officer concerned has to append his signature again in token of the compliance of the above said obligations, as given in rule 22.49(f) of the Punjab Police rules in the same Volume, entry in the daily diary register to be maintained under rule 22 43 of the Rules relating to the hour of receipt and despatch of all communications has to be made. The process to be issued in writing under rule 25.2 of the Rules is communication contemplated by rule 22.49. As I have referred to above, the Superintendent specifically checked and found that no entry, as imperatively provided by rule 22.49, had been made showing the arrival in and departure from the Police Station of the two detenus for the purpose of interrogation. The affidavits of Gurdip Singh and Pritam Singh are significantly silent about any process for summoning the two detenus having been issued to them as contemplated by rule 25.2 and any entry having been made under clause (f) of rule 22.49. The counsel appearing for the respondents frankly conceded that there were neither made any entries as contemplated by rule 22.49 nor any process or summons issued in writing as laid down in rule 25.2.

The underlying object of the above referred to two rules is that no citizen should unnecessarily be harrased or dragged to the Police Station and under the pretext of interrogation be improperly or illegally detained. There is no reason why the imperative provisions of these rules pertaining to the issue of process and making of entry of that process should not have been complied with. The Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents submitted that these rules are seldom observed. If these rules, are duly observed, imperative as they are in their nature, the device of deliberately omitting to observe compliance with these rules, which police officers conducting investigation adopt and in this way illegally detain innocent persons under the excuse of interrogation, would cease to be workable and the cases of illegal detention for investigational purposes are bound to be minimised, if not eliminated. These are wholesome rules. Their compliance enables the person sought to be summoned to know the purpose for which he is being summoned.

He also knows the time at which, the date on which and the place where he is to attend the investigation. Similarly, the time and the date of his departure will also be ascertainable from the record. The summons issued, its copy retained at police station and the existence of entries of the relevant particulars as enjoined by these rules will dissuade and discourage police officers from having resort to the unwarranted course and practice of illegal detention of persons for the sinister and collateral end of extracting involuntary information by coercive methods. Such practice deserves severest condemnation and can be made to deviate from by enforcing the said rules.

Non-compliance with these rules coupled with the circumstances referred to above under which the presence of the detenus was discovered by the Superintendent, I am satisfied that the detenus were being illegally detained. The writ petition is allowed and they are set at liberty.