CHANDER PAL Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER Chanchal Singh sent a telegram to this Court alleging therein that his son Kaka was caught by the police of Jalandhar Cantt on 24.4.2006. Subsequently, a raid was conducted by the Warrant Officer on 1.5.2006 and said Kaka was released. However, he along with another son of the petitioner, Raju was again arrested by the police of Jalandhar Cantt on 2.5.2006.

(2.) PURSUANT to the notice, a reply has been filed by way of affidavit of Deputy Superintendent of Police, City-II, Jalandhar, in which it has been averred that Sunil Kumar alias Kaka was never arrested or detained by the police of Jalandhar Cantt on 24.4.2006 as alleged in the telegram. Though, he was found in the premises of Police Station, Jalandhar on 1.5.2006 by the Warrant Officer, but he was not detained by any police official. It has been denied that he was again detained on 2.5.2006 at 4.00 A.M. by the police of Jalandhar Cantt. It has been further averred that a case FIR No.22 dated 20.4.2006 under Sections 454 and 380 IPC was registered at Police Station, Jalandhar Cantt on the statement of Dinesh Kumar Malik, a Crl.W.P.No.396 of 2006 -2- resident of Jalandhar Cantt alleging the theft of gold ornaments and other articles. One Anil Kumar was arrested by the police in connection with the said case on 1.5.2006. Subsequently, on 3.5.2006, Anil Kumar made a disclosure statement before HC Gopal Singh that he along with Sunil Kumar alias Kaka, Deepak Kumar and Rohit Kumar had committed theft at the house of Dinesh Kumar Malik, complainant. Therefore, Sunil Kumar alias Kaka was arrested in this case on 8.5.2006 and on his search, one gold Kaintha and one gold ring were recovered from him. Further, on 11.5.2006, one glass silver, five silver coins and one silver Panjeb besides Rs.5000/- were also recovered. It has been denied that Raju was arrested by the police on 2.5.2006, as alleged in the telegram. It has been also stated that Raju is neither wanted by the police nor was ever arrested by the police. In view of the aforesaid averments made in the reply, no further action is required in this case. Dismissed. November 15, 2006 (SATISH KUMAR MITTAL) vkg JUDGE