Surinder Kaur vs Gurpal Singh and anr.

A.P. Chowdhri, J.

Smt. Surinder Kaur petitioner filed the present writ petition for a writ of habeas corpus alleging that her husband ASI Singh, who was working as C.D.O. (Cashier in Police Lines, Jalandhar since 1981, had been illegally detained by the respondents in order to save some high police officers. The alleged illegal detention, according to the petitioner, was since 21st December, 1990. The police officers arrayed as respondents were Inspector Gurpal Singh, SHO Police Station Sadar, Ram Parkash Inspector, SHO Police Station Division No. 2, Devinder Singh, Inspector, SHO, Police Station Jalandhar Cantt and Gurdev Singh, Inspector SHO, Police Station Division No. 4, Jalandhar. Rule nisi for writ of habeas corpus was issued and the Warrant Officer was directed to serve the rule on the respondents and to search for the alleged detenu. The Warrant Officer appointed by this Court accordingly went first to Police Station Jalandhar Cantt and he was taken to a room in the Police Station which was allotted to one Sub Inspector of Police who was on leave in those days and in his absence the room was being used by one ASI Darshan Singh. The petitioner took the Warrant Officer straight to that room where ASI Dhira Singh, alleged detenu, was found sitting He told the Warrant Officer that he had been in custody of the police since 24th December. 1990 and had been shifted from one place to another. The Warrant Officer than enquired from Shri Devinder Singh, Inspector SHO, who stated that he was not aware of the presence of ASI Dhira Singh detenu in the police station. He, however, confirmed that ASI Dhira Singh was not required by his police station in connection with any case. The Warrant Officer made a report to this Court stating the above facts. The Warrant Officer also went to Police Station Division No 2 Jalandhar and found several articles alleged to have been recovered from the house in which ASI Dhira Singh was living.

Return has been filed by respondents No. 1 and 3. Counter affidavits have been filed thereto. The main stand disclosed from the return filed by respondents No. 1 and 3, that is, Inspector Gurpal Singh and Inspector Devinder Singh is as follows :

"One Joginder Singh, who is wife''s brother of ASI Dhira Singh has been living with the said ASI for many years. Joginder Singh is stated to have been indulging in theft and various other nefarious activities. He was wanted in several cases by the police. In fact, Joginder Singh, brotherinlaw of ASI Dhira Singh was arrested in connection with three case, details of which have been mentioned in the return. These included ore murder case. He was interrogated and following the interrogation, a number of articles were recovered which were duly taken into possession by the police under proper memoes prepared in this behalf. They were brought and deposited in Police Station Sadar, Jalandhar. ASI Dhira Singh appears to have come to Police Station Jalandhar Cantt to meet some police official known to him, possibly ASI Darshan Singh, so that the could pull his weight in favour of his brotherinlaw Joginder Singh with the police officer dealing with the case against him and at the time of the visit of the Warrant Officer, he was either found there or his presence was stagemanaged to embarrass the police so as to lighten their grip against Joginder Singh."

Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that in the facts and circumstances of the case suitable fine should be imposed on Inspector Gurpal Singh as the detenu was, apparently found in his custody and he has not been able to give a satisfactory explanation as to how and in what connection was ASI Dhira Singh called and detained there. He has relied on :

Lalitha v. Director General of Police, 1989 Cr. L. Journal 1732 (Madras).

Charanjit Singh v. Inspector Gurdev Singh and others, 1989(2) Recent CR 536.

Gurdip Singh v. SHO Police Station Banga (Cr.W.P. 170288).

Arvind Kumar Bhalla v. Gurbachan Singh and others, 1988(1) RCR(Crl.) 7 (P&H), (Cr. W. P. 102787).

Shri Hari Singh Mann, learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, has pointed out a large number of circumstances which would render the averments made in the petition open to serious doubt. His main contention is that it would be totally unfair if the respondents are condemned and a fine is imposed without a fair and adequate trial. It is unnecessary for me at this stage to go into the various circumstances pointed out by Shri Mann. Suffice it to say that I do not find it to be a fit case in which to seriously consider imposition of any fine. If the petitioner and the alleged detenu think that they have been wronged or that ASI Dhira Singh has really been illegally detained, it is open to them to get their remedy according to law. The petition is disposed of with these observations and the rule is discharged.