TARLOCHAN SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CRIMINAL Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the issuance of writ in the nature of habeas corpus for production of Kulwinder Singh @ Kid and for his release was filed by Tarlochan Singh Sidhu in this Court on 30.9.1989. In the petition, it was alleged by Tarlochan Singh Sidhu that some police personnel raided House No. 1752, Phase V, SAS Nagar (Mohali) where Kulwinder Singh @ Kid and Palwinder Singh @ Pola were allegedly staying. It was further alleged that Palwinder Singh @ Pola was the victim of police firing whereas Kulwinder Singh @ Kid was whisked away by the police personnel in the presence of Ajmer Singh, Harkirat Singh, Dhani Ram and others. On these allegations, petition was filed arraying the State of Punjab as respondent No. 1, and Surjit Singh Grewal, Inspector CIA staff, Patiala, Amarjit Singh, ASI, CIA staff, Patiala and S.H.O. Police Station, SAS Nagar (Mohali) as respondents 2, 3 and 4 respectively.

(2.) THE State of Punjab did not file any reply to the petition, but respondents 2, 3 and 4 filed their respective reply and denied the allegations of whisking away of Kulwinder Singh @ Kid. It was the case of the answering respondents that in fact the said Kulwinder Singh @ Kid had escaped from the spot and was not traceable.

(3.) ON receipt of the report, notices were again ordered to be issued to the respondents. Since respondents 2 and 3 against whom a prima-facie case had been found had not filed any objections to the report of the learned Sessions Judge, on 22.2.1996 learned counsel for the State sought time to seek instructions from the Home Secretary, Punjab in regard to the action to be taken by the Government of Punjab on the report of the Sessions Judge against the erring police officials. At the request of State counsel, the matter was adjourned to 25.3.1996, on which date he sought another adjournment which was allowed. On 2.5.1996, last opportunity was given to him as he had failed to place on record any decision of the Government. A copy of the report was also directed to be sent to the Director General of Police, Punjab, Chandigarh. On 14.5.1996, again an adjournment was sought, though on the last date of hearing it had been made clear to the State counsel that no further adjournment would be given. However, considering the matter to be sensitive, the Home Secretary, Punjab was directed to be present in Court on the next date of hearing to explain the reasons for not taking any decision on the report of the Sessions Judge. On 23.5.1996, Mr. M.L. Sarin, learned Advocate General, Punjab appeared along with the Home Secretary, Punjab and gave an undertaking that the decision of the Government would be placed on record within two days. On 27.5.1996, instead of placing on record any decision of the Government with regard to action to be taken against the police officials, the State of Punjab filed an affidavit of Sh. Manjeet Singh Narang, Under Secretary to Government of Punjab, raising objections to the enquiry report of Sessions Judge. On the basis of objections, in para 6 of the affidavit the Under Secretary gave the following conclusions :