BALJIT KAUR Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB & OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) On the petition being filed, on 29.1.2001, this Court appointed a Warrant Officer to raid the Police Station of respondent No. 3 and to secure the release of the alleged detenue, namely, Gurpal Singh, if he was not otherwise, required in a case registered in accordance with law. The Warrant Officer submitted the report on 30.1.2001. In this report, it is stated that the daily diary register was made available to the Warrant Officer. On the search being conducted, the alleged detenue was not found in the custody of respondent No. 3. When the case came up for hearing on 31.1.2001, it was pointed out by Mr. Hundal that Sukhdev Singh, S. H. O. Police Station Mandi Gobindgarh visited the house of the petitioner on 30.1.2001 and informed her that if she wants to recover her son, she should contact him at the telephone number given. The note was alleged to have been written by Sukhdev Singh, S. H. O. , Police Station Gobindgarh. Consequently, this Court directed to issue notice to Sukhdev Singh, S. H. O. , of Police Station Gobindgarh to explain as to why proceedings under the Contempt of Courts Act be not initiated against him. The matter was adjourned to 15.2.2001. The alleged handwriting of the SHO was directed to be kept in sealed cover. This was accordingly done.

(2.) All the respondents have filed replies. In the reply filed by respondents No. 1 and 2, it is stated that the petitioner did not visit the Police Station on 29.1.2001. It was also stated that Gurpal Singh, the alleged detenue, was arrested by SHO Sukhdev Singh, on 31.1.2001 and he was produced before the Illaqa Magistrate on 1.2.2001. Copy of the application seeking Police remand of the alleged detenue dated 31.1.2001 is attached with the reply. Respondent No. 3 has also filed the reply. In this, it is stated that FIR No. 14 was registered at the Police Station Mandi Gobindgarh, Distt. Fatehgarh Sahib on 20.1.2001 at the behest of Manager, Punjab & Sind Bank Branch: Kukkar Majra, Gobindgarh. In the FIR it was stated that one Shanti Sarup, Proprietor of M/s Om Shankar Enterprises stole the draft book of the Bank and also encashed the draft of the Bank on 18.1.2001 amounting to Rs. 4,50,500/- by draft No. 762402. It was also stated that one Ravinder Shahi, Proprietor Rohit Cement Store also tried to forge draft No. 762404 for an amount of Rs. 8,70,000/-. It was in pursuance of the investigation that Gurpal Singh alias Babbi has been arrested alongwith six others persons and recovery has been effected from him. On 31.1.2001, Sukhwinder Singh son of Virsa Singh, Jat resident of Village Kheri Phattan, Police Station Sadar, Samaria, District Patiala came to the police station and recorded his statement under Section 161 of the Cr. P. C. On his statement, bank draft Nos. 762405 to 762414 were recovered from Gurpal Singh, the alleged detenue. The alleged detenue was arrested in front of witness and was produced before the Magistrate within the prescribed period. Other recoveries had also been made from the alleged detenue. From the investigation, it has further surfaced that Gurpal Singh alias Babbi was not the only conspirator. It has also transpired that this Gurpal Singh had taken a loan from the Punjab Scheduled Castes Land Development and Financial Corporation, Ropar in which he was a defaulter. This loan was taken in the year 1994. He deposited an amount of Rs. 11,873/- which was the first installment. After that he did not deposit any amount. He further deposited a sum of Rs. 10,000/- on 16.1.2001. Mr. Hundal has vehemently submitted that Gurpal Singh is being falsely implicated only because his mother filed the habeas corpus petition.

(3.) Having considered the entire matter, I am unable to accept the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner. Sukhdev Singh, SHO has denied ever writing the note which has been kept in the sealed cover. The explanation submitted by the SHO is also plausible as there was no occasion for him to personally go to the house of the petitioner and demand payment. Even according to the mother, she had visited the Police Station on 29.1.2001. The demand for money could well have been made on 29.1.2001 itself. Therefore, even the pleaded case of the petitioner does not seem plausible when properly scrutinised. In such circumstances, I do not find that the SHO of Police Station Gobindgarh has acted in any manner which is beyond the scope of his duty. The alleged detenue has been detained in accordance with law on the basis of a case properly registered.