MUNGILA KHATUN Vs. STATE OF ASSAM AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) As ordered on 14.5.98, Sabed Ali, the husband of the petitioner Mrs. Mungila Khatun is produced in Court by respondent No.6, Hari Singh, who is also present in Court. Respondent No.4, the Officer-in-charge, Naharlangun PS is not present. Learned Govt Advocate Mrs Saikia states that he having sustained bullet injury is undergoing treatment. In view of this statement made by the learned Govt Advocate his personal presence/appearance for the day is dispensed with. Respondent No.5, the OC, South Salmara PS is not present.

(2.) We have heard Mr. D.C. Mahanta, learned counsel for the petitioner and also Mrs Saikia, learned Govt Advocate, Arunachal Pradesh.

(3.) This is a petition for a writ of Habeas Corpus and the person Sabed Ali who was allegedly wrongfully confined with active assistance and collusion of the police authorities is now present in Court. He states that it was at the behest of police that he was detained by Hari Singh. Hari Singh who is present in the Court frankly admits that Sabed Ali owes him Rs. 1,10,000.00 and would like to detain him as a bonded labour till his money is recovered. Sabed Ali is freed. Police as well as Hari Singh who is present in Court are directed to desist from attempting to keep Sabed Ali at the residence of Hari Singh or at his place of business. It is no part of a duty of a Police Officer to take recourse to illegal or extra legal need to oblige a complainant and even if a person is required to be arrested, the bare minimum procedural fairness much be observed irrespective of the fact that the Code of Criminal Procedure applies or not. Before taking anybody into custody his/her friends and/or relatives must be informed. Law does not permit to whisk anybody. It is cautioned that any future attempt in such practices shall not be countenanced by the Court.