SURINDER KAUR Vs. GURPAL SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SMT . Surinder Kaur petitioner filed the present writ petition for a writ of habeas corpus alleging that her husband ASI Dhira Singh, who was working as C.D.O. (Cashier) in Police Lines, Jalandhar since 1981, had been-illegally detained by the respondents in order to save some high police officers. The alleged illegal detention, according to the petitioner, was since 21st December, 1990. The police officers arrayed as respondents were Inspector Gurpal Singh, SHO Police Station Sadar, Ram Parkash Inspector SHO Police Station Division No. 2, Devinder Singh, Inspector, SHO, Police Station Jalandhar Cantt and Gurdev Singh, Inspector SHO, Police Station Division No. 4 Jalandhar. Rule nisi for a writ of habeas corpus was issued and the Warrant Officer was directed to serve the rule on the respondent and to search for the alleged detenu. The Warrant Officer appointed by this Court accordingly went first to Police Station Jalandhar Cantt and he was taken to a room in the Police Station which was allotted to one Sub-Inspector of Police who was on leave in those days and in his absence the room was being used by one ASI Darshan Singh. The petitioner look the Warrant Officer straight to, that room where ASI Dhira Singh, alleged detenu, was found sitting. He told the Warrant Officer that he had been in custody of the police since 24th December, 990 and had been shifted from one place to another. The Warrant officer then enquired from Shri Devinder Singh, Inspector SHO, who stated that he was not aware of the presence of ASI Dhira Singh detenu in the police station. He, however, confirmed that ASI Dhira Singh was not required by his police station in connection with any case. The Warrant Officer made a report to this Court stating the above facts. The Warrant officer also went to Police Station Division No 2 Jalandhar, and -found several articles alleged to have beet recovered from the house in which ASI Dhira Singh was living.

(2.) RETURN has been filed by respondents No. 1 and 3 Counter Affidavits have been filed thereto. The main stand disclosed from the return filed by respondents No. 1 and 3, that is, Inspector Gurpal Singh and Inspector Devinder Singh is as follows :

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner contends that in the facts and circumstances of the case suitable fine should be imposed on Inspector Gurpal Singh as the detenu was apparently found in his custody and he has not been able to give a satisfactory explanation as to how and in what connection was ASI Dhira Singh called and detained there. He has relied on :-