AVTAR SINGH Vs. DARSHAN SINGH, STATION HOUSE OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AVTAR Singh petitioner father of Surinder Singh alias Pappu in this writ petition had averred that his son aforesaid Surinder Singh is being detained at Police Post Jodhewal since 30.11.1990 without any rhyme reason and is being tortured. A warrant officer was ordered to be appointed for effecting the release of the alleged detenu vide order dated 21.12.90. The warrant officer raided the premises of Police post Jodhewal at 9.40 a.m. on 22.12.1990 and found Surinder Singh alias Pappu on the premises of the police post. On query of the warrant officer, SI Gurdarshan Singh appraised him of the detenu having been called to the police post at 7 a.m. on that day for investigation in connection with the case registered vide FIR No. 212 dated 21.7.1990 for offence under section 380, Indian Penal Code. The warrant officer. However, did not find any entry in the Daily Diary of the police post regarding the arrest of Surinder Singh. On the instructions of the warrant officer, the concerned police officer released Surinder Singh detenu. Surinder Singh was feeling some pain in his legs and represented to the warrant officer that he had been tortured continuously since 30.11 1990. The detenu and his father then accompanied the warrant officer to Samrala Chowk when they represented that one head constable and two constables were following them on motor cycle and scooter. At the request of the detenu, the warrant officer brought the detenu to the High Court at Chandigarh. On the way the detenu and his father again pointed out at Morinda Bus Stand that those police officials were still following them in a Maruti van. One police official then boarded the bus at Morinda in which the warrant officer and the detenu were travelling. When all these persons alighted at the Bus Stand Sector 17, Chd., the same Maruti van was found parked at the outer gate of the bus stand. As the detenu and his father were apprehensive of the police officials, the warrant officer brought them to the High Court premises. Thereafter, it is averred that the detenu approached Justice G.S. Chahal and obtained orders for his medical examination and he was examined at General Hospital, Sector 16, Chandigarh and 18 injuries of more than 2 weeks duration were found on his person.

(2.) S .I. Gurdarshan and ASI Trilok Singh of Police Post Jodhewal attached with Police Station, Sadar Ludhiana have filed return to the effect that they never apprehended or illegally detained Surinder Singh on 30.11.1990 but he was called to the police station on 22.12.1990 when Jathedar Gurcharan Singh had produced him. It is further averred that the father of the detenu on the one hand arranged the production of his son before the police on that day and on the other hand, with a calculated move had already filed the writ petition before the High Court on 21.12.1990 in order to implicate the police and hamper the investigation of the case.

(3.) THE police can summon any suspect for investigation purposes in a case involving cognizable offence and the formal arrest of the suspect is effected only after recording his statement and finding from the evidence collected during the investigation that he is involved in that case. The detenu was not formally arrested by the police in this case as he was being simply interrogated. It is a matter of detailed evidence whether the detenu was kept in custody since 30.11.1990 or was called to the police post only on the morning of 22.12.1990 when the warrant officer raided the premises of the police post. Thus, it cannot be said with certainty at this stage that the detenu was being illegally detained. Consequently, no further action is called for in this writ petition. The petitioner, if so advised, can have recourse to the general law and file a complaint against the police officials concerned in the court competent to try the same. The conduct of the police officials in shadowing the detenu up till Chandigarh, though not appreciable, but does not amount to contempt of Court as it is not averred that those police officials had restrained the warrant officer or had in any manner tried to re-arrest the alleged detenu. The time spent in pursuing the present writ petition shall be taken into account while considering the delay in filing the complaint.