Swaran Kaur vs State of Punjab

S.S. Sudhalkar, J.

This petition has been filed by Swaran Kaur with a prayer to direct respondents to produce her son Santokh Singh who is allegedly kidnapped by the police. It is contended by the petitioner that respondent No. 2 with a police party of 56 persons came to village Jaspal on 31.7.1991 in the evening and raided the house of the petitioner and took Santokh Singh in custody. It is further contended that the petitioner along with Gurnam Singh, Malkiat Singh and other respectables of the village met respondent No. 2 and requested him to release Santokh Singh. He promised to do so by saying that Santokh Singh was being interrogated and would be sent back to his village shortly. It is also contended that the petitioner along with above referred persons and some other persons also met respondents No. 3 and 4 and brought to their notice the factum of arrest of Santokh Singh by respondent No. 2 and requested for his release. When Santokh Singh was not released, despite various applications made by the petitioner, the present petition has been filed.

Reply has been filed by Sukhbir Singh, Deputy Superintendent of Police in which the allegations made in the petition are denied. It is contended that respondent No. 2 never conducted any raid at village Jaspal nor any person of the name of Santokh Singh was taken in custody. Respondent No. 2 against whom allegations are made also filed his affidavit and denied the contentions made by the petitioner.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties.

The prayers made in the petition are as under:

"(i) Issue a writ of habeas corpus to the respondents for the production of detenu Santokh Singh;

(ii) In case he is not produced in this Court an inquiry may be got made about the taking away of Santokh Singh by Major Singh, respondent, and the fate which he met thereafter.

(iii) Any other just or proper order may also be passed which may advance the ends of justice."

The respondents have denied taking of Santokh Singh in custody and thus, it is not possible to grant the first prayer to get the detenu produced before this Court. The question is whether enquiry should be ordered or not. It is vehemently argued on behalf of the respondents that though the alleged kidnapping was of July, 1991, this petition is filed as late as in September, 1996 and, therefore delay itself shows that the petition is without merit and should be dismissed. It is also argued on behalf of the respondent that the possibility of alleged detenu being involved in some criminal activity and his absconding or going abroad cannot be ruled out. Normally the court will be reluctant to order investigation of such complaints which are of belated nature. Learned conusel for the petitioner argued that some enquiry may be entrusted to a judicial officer. He has shown various judgments passed by this Court viz. Charanjit Kaur v. State of Punjab (CWP No. 769 of 1995) Ravinder Kaur v. State of Punjab (Crl.W.P. 1222 of 95), etc. In the case of Ravinder Kaur (supra) the incident was of 1993 and the writ petition was filed in the year 1995 whereas in the case of Charanjit Kaur v. State (supra) the incident was of the year 1992 and the writ petition was filed in the year 1995.

In view of the above position, I do not find it proper to entrust the enquiry to be conducted by a Judicial Officer who are already overburdened with their own work. Because the prayer is made by a widow for tracing her son and only on humanitarian ground, I find it proper to entrust the enquiry to be conducted by the CBI which may be able to find out the whereabouts of alleged detenu, role played by respondent No. 2 and whether the detenu is kidnapped or has gone away or gone abroad as argued by respondents.

Hence, this petition is allowed. It is ordered that CBI shall conduct enquiry regarding the whereabouts of the alleged detenu.

Copies of this order and paper book of this case be handed over to the CBI by the registry.