PURNIMA BARUA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this application under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner Smt. Purnima Barua complains that the arrest and detention of her son Dipanka Barua are unlawful and prays for a writ of Habeas Corpus and compensation.

(2.) Facts, On receipt of reliable information that Dipanka is an ULFA activist, the army authority went to the house of the petitioner Purnima at Jorhat and enquired about her son Dipanka. The petitioner informed the army authority, that her son Dipanka had gone to Gauhati in connection with marriage of his elder sister Swapnalee. The army authority searched the house of Swapnalee at Ulubari in Guwahati on 31-12-90 at about 2.00 p.m. accompanied by an Executive Magistrate and the army authority arrested Dipanka therefrom. After arrest of Dipanka on 31-12-90, the army authority made over Dipanka to the police station at Jorhat. The Jorhat police produced Dipanka before the Magistrate at Jorhat for remand order. As directed by this Court in this application Dipanka was produced on 7-1-91. It may be noted here that the date of handing over Dipanka to Jorhat police is in dispute. We shall deal with it later in this judgment.

(3.) Mr. H. Roy, the learned counsel for the petitioner, in the course of the argument, has not sought the writ of habeas corpus as Dipanka has been arrested by the civil police in connection with regular police case and he is now under-trial prisoner. We are of the view that the learned counsel has rightly done so in view of the decision in Saptawana v. State of Assam, AIR 1971 SC 813 : 1971 Cri LJ 679. However, the learned counsel has prayed for monetary compensation stating that the army authority detained Dipanka wrongfully.