AJAIB SINGH LACHHMAN SINGH Vs. GURBACHAN SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition under S. 491 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed by ajaib Singh for issue of a writ of habeas corpus for the production of Jarnail Singh of Amristar District before this Court.

(2.) ACCORDING to the allegations in the petition Jarnail Singh, aged 46, was a heart patient and had been confined in the V. J. Hospital, Amritsar, for certain periods in the year 1963 as detailed therein, that he was involved by the Amritsar police in an Arms Act case in which he was acquitted by the Sessions Judge, who, in his judgment dated 15th of May, 1958, came to the conclusion that it appeared that the recovery had been foisted upon Jarnail Singh, that subsequently he refused to be a false witness in a police challan case under S. 325/34, Indian Penal Code, and that for this the Amritsar police was inimically disposed towards him. It is further stated that because of this annoyance of the police he was arrested by Shri gurbachan Singh Inspector of Police on the 4th of July 1964 at the workshop of majha Transport Society, Amritsar, of which he is a director without being shown any warrant, that he has not since been produced before any Magistrate and that an application given by the applicant before a Magistrate at Amritsar for getting jarnail Singh medically examined has also not been complied with. After getting instruction from his client the learned counsel for the applicant made a statement before me that Jarnail Singh has never been produced before a magistrate since his arrest. Rule was issued and it has now been detention order issued under rule 30 of the Defence of India Rules directed the detention of Jarnail singh in order to prevent him from acting in a manner prejudicial to the defence of india and civil defence that Jarnail Singh was arrested in execution of this detention order and a copy of this order was not only shown but given to Jarnail singh and in token of the same his signatures were obtained on the back of the detention order, and that on that very day the original detention order was sent to the Reviewing Authority under the Rules.

(3.) WHEN the case came up for hearing this morning additional grounds were put in purporting to be in reply to the return filed on behalf of the respondents alleging that the detention order was mala fide. One of the main points taken in support of this contention is that in pursuance of the first information report which was registered as far back as 29th of June 1963 under the Arms Act, Opium Act and section 411, Indian Penal Code, against Jarnail Singh, his house in village bhagtupura, which is at a distance of about six miles from Amritsar, was searched almost at about the same time as he was arrested in Amritsar. No reply could be filed by the other side to these allegations. I, however, instead of adjourning the case heart the learned counsel for the application at length on the assumption that the facts with regard to the search of the house on 4th of July at Bhagtupura are correct.