BALBIR SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Balbir Singh has filed this criminal writ petition seeking direction for issuance of a writ of Habeas Corpus on the ground that his son has been illegally detained by the respondents and so should be got recovered. Noticing the fact that Rajinder Singh @ Hunny, 12 years old son of the petitioner, was alleged to have been kidnapped by respondents No.5 to 9, notice of motion was issued to the respondents. The prayer made by the petitioner for appointing a Warrant Officer to search the premises of respondents No.5 to 9 was also granted. The Warrant Officer was directed to search not only the residential premises of respondents No.5 to 9, but any other place indicated by the petitioner with further direction to submit his report on or before the date fixed.

(2.) The facts, which led to issuance of the above directions, as narrated in the petition are that 35 persons had attacked Satnam Singh, brother of the petitioner while he was present in his house in street No.1, Mohalla Ambedkar Nagar, 33 road, Giaspur, Ludhiana. As per the allegations, the brother and father of the petitioner were caused injuries with sharp edged weapon and during this attack, the accused persons had kidnapped the son of the petitioner, aged 12 years, which led to filing of the present petition. It is further disclosed that FIR No.158 dated 20.5.2007 was lodged in this regard under various Ss. of the IPC at Police Station, Focal Point Ludhiana.

(3.) Pursuant to the directions issued by the court, Warrant Officer went and searched the residential as well as commercial - cum -residential premises of respondents No.5 to 7 and 9. He, however, could not find detenu Rajinder Singh @ Hunny son of the petitioner at any of the said places. The petitioner could not locate the address of respondent No.8 and as such search was not carried out at the residential premises of the said respondent. When the case was taken up for hearing on 5.6.2007, learned State counsel prayed for time to produce the child in the court. However, on the adjourned date, i.e., 3.7.2007 the State counsel, on instructions, submitted before the court that the police was unable to produce the child as the child was stated to be in the custody of the petitioner. This statement was made by the State counsel on the basis of statements of ten persons recorded by the police, who claimed that they had seen the child in custody of the petitioner after the alleged date of abduction. Still a direction was issued to the police to trace out the child. Respondents were also directed to file reply to the petition.