SHAM LAL Vs. AJIT SINGH AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition for habeas corpus was filed to seek release of Jang Bahadur detenu notice was issued for 17th Match, 1981 and a warrant officer was appointed to search for the detention at Police Station Dasuya. The Warrant Officer has reported that the detenu was within the precincts of police station, the gate of which was guarded. In his statement made on 17th March, 1981, he supplemented his report by saying in Court that he left the police station at 6.30 P.M. with the detenu, who told him that the police had given him a beating, but no visible injury was found on his person. For an hour thereafter, the detenu and his companions had gone away on the pretext of taking tea. Thereafter the detenu is said to have accompanied him to Chandigarh. During that interval of one hour, the detenu obtained a medico legal certificate from Dr. Satish Kumar Aroa, Civil Hospital, Dasuya, at 7.30 P.M. on 16th March, 1981 indicating fifteen simple injuries on his person.

(2.) RESPONDENT No. 1 Ajit Singh S.I., S.H.O. Police Station, Drsuya, admitted that the detenu under his orders had been called to the police station in connection with F.I.R. No. 206 dated 16th October, 1980 and F.I.R. No. 206 dated 16th October, 1980. It stands undisputed by him that the accused in those cases were found to be in possession of illicit arms. Some instructions were pleaded to have been issued on 24th October, 1910 by the Inspector General of Police, C.I.D., requiring the Investigating Officer to submit a proforma to the head quarters whenever a case under the Arms Act was registered at any police station communicating the original source of the weapon of offence. It was claimed in the return that under these circumstances interrogation of the detenu Jang Bahadur and one Lakha Singh of village Kainthan was required in accordance with the instructions since the accused in those cases had mentioned their source of acquisition of the firearms to be the detenu and Lakha Singh An additional affidavit was also filed by the said respondent denying that the detenu was given any injuries by the Police while he was in police station. It is however, the case of respondent No. 1 as also of respondent No. 2 that the detenu is required for further interrogation to comply with the said instructions.

(3.) IN the circumstances, when the detenu has not been formally arrested, it would be appropriate to treat him as having been set free. The Police can, however, go on with their inquires for their departmental purposes, but not to risk the liberty of the detenu in the presence of these set of facts. The respondents would do so at their risk. The detenu, however, would be at liberty to proceed against the respondents, if so advised, in accordance with law. The petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms.