HARBHAJAN KAUR Vs. BALDEV SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HARBHAJAN Kaur, mother of fourteen years old girl named Lachhmi, filed this petition in the year 2004 for issuing of a writ of Habeas Corpus alleging that her daughter was illegally detained by respondents No. 1 and 2, who were then working as SHO and SI at Police Station 'B' Division, Amritsar. Prayer for detailing a Warrant Officer was also made. This court noticing the averments made in the petition, issued notice of motion to the Advocate General, Punjab and detailed a Warrant Officer to search for Lachhmi stated to be illegally detailed at Police Station 'B' Division, Amritsar or any other place, which may be pointed out by the petitioner. Warrant Officer was also directed to submit his report on or before the adjourned date.

(2.) PURSUANT to the directions of this court, the Warrant Officer proceeded to conduct the search on 15.9.2004. The Warrant Officer reached Police Station 'B' Division Amritsar at 10.20 P.M. on the same day. He searched for the detenu in the police station. Baldev Singh, brother of the detenu, was found present in the police station being on police remand alongwith Mani, Devinder and Subhash. On search, the Warrant Officer could not find the detenu in the police station. The petitioner was asked to call the name of the detenu loudly, whereupon the Warrant Officer and others heard some noise from the back portion of the police station, which was stated to be the office of CIA Staff, Majitha. The Warrant Officer could not, however, find a way to enter this rear portion of the police station. Respondents No. 1 and 2, namely, Baldev Singh SHO and Kashmira Singh SI also reached the police station in the meantime and stated before the Warrant Officer that the detenu was never brought to the police station. Warrant Officer served the said police officers notice about the present petition. The Warrant Officer proceeded towards the location of CIA Staff from the road side, which was located in the back portion of the same building on the first floor. On the asking of Warrant Officer, Sentry opened the door. The search there also did not yield any result or the presence of detenu. During this time, only the petitioner went to the ground floor and there detenu Lachhmi alongwith one Lady Constable Amarjit Kaur and a car driver were found standing outside the door. Detenu Lachhmi disclosed before the Warrant Officer that she had been taken out from the premises of first floor by Lady Constable Amarjit Kaur on the excuse of taking her to bath-room. As soon as she disclosed this fact, the police officials, present there, slipped from the scene one by one. MHC was also not present there and the Roznamcha register was also not made available to the Warrant Officer. In this background, the Warrant Officer left the police station with detenu Lachhmi and after leaving her at her residence, he returned to Chandigarh. He submitted his report before this court on 22.9.2004.

(3.) I have heard the learned counsel for the parties.