LAWS(P&H)-1969-11-6

BALDEV SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

Decided On November 04, 1969
BALDEV SINGH Appellant
V/S
STATE OF PUNJAB Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution read with section 491 of the Criminal Procedure Code, the prayer is for issuing a writ in the nature of Habeas corpus directing the respondents, the State of Punjab and the Police Officials in-charge of Police Station Beas to set at liberty S. Gian Singh Rarewala and S. Basant Singh from their alleged illegal detention at the Police Station Beas in the District of Amritsar. The Petitioner S. Baldev Singh, who was Deputy Speaker of the Punjab Vidhan Sabha prior to the last mid-term election, claims to be a friend of the detenus S. Gian Singh Rarewala and S. Basant Singh. S. Gian Singh Rarewala was at one time a Chief Minister in the erstwhile State of Pepsu. S. Basant Singh is a Member of the Legislative Assembly and Secretary of the Punjab Unit of the Swantantra Party.

(2.) S. Darshan Singh Pheruman, who undertook a fast to press the claim of the Punjab for the inclusion of the Union Territory of Chandigarh in that State, died on 27th October, 1969, at Amritsar. The next day his dead body was taken to his village Pheruman, about 25 miles away, and cremated there. In accordance with the religious custom his ashes were to be collected on 30th October, 1969. According to the petitioner's allegations, that morning, while he was proceeding to Pheruman to participate in that function accompanied by S. Gian Singh Rarewala in a car and reached Rayya at 8. 30 A. M. , the Deputy Superintendent of Police, in charge Beas Police Station (S. S. Bains) respondent No. 4, stopped them and told S. Gian Singh Rarewala that he could not proceed to village Pheruman. On being asked to produce written orders banning his movements or entry in village Pheruman, the Deputy Superintendent of Police is stated to have told S. Gian Singh Rarewala that he was under arrest and asked him to come out of the car. In the meanwhile, Besant Singh M. L. A. , the other detenu named in the petition, came there similarly bound for Pheruman. He was also stopped and not permitted to go to that village. The Deputy Superintendent of Police asked S. Gian Singh Rarewala to get into a police jeep, which was parked nearby, and directed S. Basant Singh to go to police station Beas and from there to contact the Superintendent of Police on telephone before he cold proceed to Pheruman. A Police constable was, however, made to sit with him. While leaving, S. Basant Singh asked the petitioner to follow him. Baldev Singh thereupon got into the car in which he has travelled with S. Gian Singh Rarewala and followed the police jeep and the car of S. Basant Singh. On reaching the Police Station, when S. Basant Singh wanted to use the telephone, the Station House Officer, Beas Police Station respondent No. 5, (S. I. Bachan singh) promptly told him that he was under arrest but refused to disclose any reason or grounds for his arrest. Throughout the day all three of them remained at the Police Station. About 6. 30 P. M. , he learnt from the two detenus that the reasons for their detention had not been disclosed to them despite their persistent enquiries but on the other hand they were informed that

(3.) ON the 31st of October, 1969, when this petition came up before the Motion Bench, rule nisi returnable by 1. 45 p. m. , on that very day was issued to the Advocate General, Punjab. Subsequently soon after lunch when the case was placed before me, the Deputy Advocate General, Punjab, stoutly opposing the prayer for a writ of Habeas corpus stated before me that S. Gian Singh Rarewala along with 12 others had been arrested by the police in connection with first information report No. 315 dated the 29th of October, 1969, registered at Police Station, Beas, under Section 9 of the Punjab Security of Sate Act. , 1953, because of certain speeches alleged to have been made by them at village Pheruman on the 29th October, 1969. At that time he disclosed that according to the information which he received on the telephone, the detenus had been taken to a Magistrate at Amritsar for obtaining their remand but the Magistrate adjourned the case till 2. 00 p. m. on that day as he was busy in some other case at the time the detenus were taken to his Court. Neither the copy of the first information report or other papers were then in possession of the Deputy Advocate General. Obviously he was under a handicap as the rule nisi had been issued to the Advocate General alone and that too only that morning. Accordingly, by my order dated the 31st of October, 1969, I directed the rule nisi to issue to the police officers concerned, the Deputy Superintendent of Police and the Station House Officer in charge of the Police Station, Beas, with the direction that the detenu be produced in this Court on the 3rd of November, 1969 (the 1st and 2nd of November being Saturday and Sunday) along with the relevant papers.