DALJIT SINGH RAJPUT Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Shri Daljit Singh Rajput an Advocate of this Court in this public litigation through a writ petition filed by him under Art.226 of the Constitution of India has focused the attention of the court on a recent but fourth case of a similar nature of disappearance of a Lawyer stated to be engaged in defending persons allegedly involved in terrorists activities in the estimate of Punjab police, praying either production of the missing Advocate in the Court and if the respondent-police officers are unable to produce the Advocate to order investigation in the matter by the Central Bureau of Investigation.

(2.) It is the news item that appeared in 'Daily Ajit' stated to be circulating at National and Inter-National level on l 4/05/1994 with caption 'STRIKE DUE TO KIDNAPPING OF ADVOCATE" which evoked considerable interest. The petitioner with view to find out the truth through an independent investigating agency filed the petition in the nature of habeas corpus on the very date when the news item appeared i.e. 14/05/1994, the same being holiday was presented at my residence after getting it cleared from the office. It is mainly pleaded that the facts mentioned in the news item led the petitioner to have strong apprehension that the District Police officials of Sangrur at the instance of Senior Superintendent of Police, Sangrur had kidnapped Sukhwinder Singh Bhatti Advocate in civil dress. The news item reads thus:-

(3.) The petitioner pleads that the apprehension of involement of respondent police officers was for the basic fact that the missing Advocate was pleading thc cases of persons who were detained for high security jail, Sangrur and was also defence Counsel in famous Longowal murder case. The petitioner, as referred to above, seeks production of the Advocate or in alternative enquiry by some independent agency as according to him the police officers are not likely to take any action in the matter as those who abducted Mr. Bhatti were their subordinates and the respondent police officers, therefore, were not likely to move against them.