SUBHASH CHANDER Vs. STATION HOUSE OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard. Petitioner is present in. the Court. Mr. Ashok Nabhawala submits that from the warrant officers report it is evident that the detenu was taken in custody by the respondents 2 and 3 on 20.3.1995 in the evening and on 23.3.1995 the Warrant Officer found the detenu present in the Police. Station, Sadar Sunam, from where he got him released. Admittedly, no criminal case is registered at this Police Station against the detenu. The high handed action of the respondents 2 and 3 is reprehensible and should be condemned so that the liberty of other citizens may not be infringed in this way by the police officials.

(2.) Mr. A.S. Kalra, learned counsel for the respondents, controverting the above facts submitted that respondent Nos. 2 and 3 had not taken the detenu in custody on 20.3.1995. The detenu was called through Gurjant Singh, President. Rickshaw Union, Sunam and Rajinder Kumar, President, Rehri Union, Sunam, on 20.3.1995 for interrogation in connection with FIR. No. 179 dated 25.12.1994, registered under Sections 457/ 380 of the Indian Penal Code. He also contended that in the presence of these two persons, whose affidavits are filed on record, the detenu was interrogated and these persons were thereafter asked to produce him again Oil 21.3.1995. In compliance thereof, they produced the detenu on 21.3.1995 and 21.3.1995 at Police Station Sadar, Sunam but as respondents 2 and 3 were not available, the detenu arid these persons came back. For that purpose, these persons again produced the detenu at the Police Station on23.3.199531id on this date, the Warrant Office found the detenu in the premises of the police station and got him released. He further submitted that the police has the onerous duty to hold investigation whenever commission of my offence is reported. To perform their duties they are supposed to interrogate the suspected persons and only after getting some tangible information, they register an offence against that person. With that view, the detenu was caned at the police station through Gurjant Singh and Rajinder Kumar. The detenu was not detained in the police station for four days as is alleged in the petition.

(3.) The petitioner filed this Hebeas Corpus petition on 23.3.1995 alleging that on 20.3.1995 at 5.25 p.m., the respondents 2 and 3 had taken away the detenu. His mother and the petitioner requested these respondents to release the detenu but they abused and demanded a high price for that. On 23.3.1995, the Warrant Officer appointed by this Court went to the Police Station Sadar, Sunam, and found the detenu present there and got him released. From the affidavits of Gurjant Singh and Rajinder Kumar it is evident that the detenu was caned at the Police Station 20.3.1995. Both these affidavits are identical. Rajinder Kumar is president of the Rehri Union but still in his affidavit, be has deposed that 7/8 months back Mohammad Akram had hired a rickshaw of the deponent for 15 days but after that he did not use his rickshaw and claimed himself as rickshaw- puller at Sunam. This shows the falsity of the statement of these got-up witnesses. Much reliance cannot be placed on these affidavits. These deponents have to ply their business arid for that they need police protection.