DHANANJAY SHARMA Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) On 17-1-1994, Shri Parasmal Rampuria of C.R. Industries Limited filed a petition seeking issuance of a writ of habeas corpus for the release of Dhananjay Sharma from illegal and unauthorised custody of the Haryana Police and for his production in Court. It is alleged in the writ petition that on account of some civil disputes between M/s. Bhanu Iron and Steel Company Limited (in short BISCL) of New Delhi, with a factory at Indore, which is owned by respondent No. 7, Shri Anoop Bishnoi, son-in-law of Shri Bhajan Lal Chief Minister of Haryana and M/s. C.R. Industries Limited, a case under Section 406/420, I.P.C. was got registered by respondent No. 6 Shri S. K. Kaushik, the Commercial Manager of BISCL, being FIR No. 663/93 at Police Station Sadar, Hissar against Shri Pradeep Rampuria and others. On 7-1-1994, a team of police party, headed by Additional Superintendent of Police, Hissar Shri Sham Lal Goel, respondent No. 4, went to the residence of Shri Pradeep Rampuria at Diamond Harbour Road, Calcutta, to arrest Shri Pradeep Rampuria on the Authority of non-bailable warrants of arrest issued against him by the Additional Chief Judical Magistrate, Hissar. Shri Pradeep Rampuria was arrested and on 7-1-1994 itself produced before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Alipore, Calcutta, who released him on bail till 15-1-1994, with a direction to appear before the competent Court at Hissar. On 15-1-1994 Shri Dhananjay Sharma, the detenu, who is an employee of M/s. Golden Industries, a sister concern of M/s. CR Industries Limited, along with Shri S.C. Puri, advocate went to Hissar in a taxi (van) bearing registration No. DAE-3668 driven by Sushil Kumar. They appeared in the Court of the Addl. DJM Hissar and filed an application seeking exemption from personal appearance of Shri Pradeep Rampuria on medical grounds. After filing the application and obtaining the next date from the court, the detenu, Shri Dhananjay Sharma along with his lawyer Shri S.C. Puri, left for Delhi in the same taxi car (van) driven by Sushil Kumar. A team of Haryana police officers, riding in six police gypsy jeeps, way laid them on Hissar-Delhi road and while, after some arguments Shri S.C. Puri,. Advocate, was allowed to go, the detenu and Sushil Kumar along with the taxi car were whisked away by the police personnel on 15-1-1994 and were being illegally detained by the Haryana Police and their whereabouts were not known and that they had not returned to Delhi. Shri S.C. Puri, Advocate filed an affidavit in support of the writ petition, wherein it was inter alia stated:

(2.) On 18-1-1994 after perusing the affidavit of Shri S. S. Puri and the writ petition, this Court issued notice to the respondents. Miss Indu Malhotra, Advocate, Standing Counsel for the State of Haryana, accepted the notice on behalf of respondents 1 to 5. Copies of the petition and the affidavit had already been handed over to her by the learned counsel for the petitioner. A direction was issued by us to respondent No. 3 to produce the detenu Dhananjay Sharma and the taxi driver Sushil Kumar, if in detention, in this Court on 19-1-1994. Respondents 3 to 5 were also directed to file an affidavit indicating the circumstances under which they took the detenu and the driver of the taxi car. Sushil Kumar, into custody. as alleged in the petition and in the affidavit of Shri S. C. Puri. Notices by ordinary means were issued to respondents 6 and 7. On 19-1-1994 respondents 3 to 5 filed their affidavits. Shri Sham Lal Goel, Addl. Superintendent of Police, Hissar respondent No. 4 in his affidavit denied the allegations made in the writ petition as well as in the affidavit of Shri S. C. Puri, Advocate. In para 1 of the affidavit he stated:

(3.) In paras 2,3,,4,9,10,13,14 (there are no pragraphs numbered as 5 to 8) the details of the case leading to the registration of the FIR against Shri Rampuria and other and the investigation of the case, registered on the statement of S. K. Kaushik , respondent No. 6 were given. It was asserted that the dispute between the parties was not of a civil nature. In para 12 it was admitted that an Advocate had appeared in the Court of Addl. CJM, Hissar on 15-1-1994, and had filed an application for exemption from personal appearance of Shri Pradeep Rampuria and that the Court had adjourned the case to 12-2-1994. Rest of the allegations were denied.