Crl. W. P. No. 1018 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Case No. : Crl. W. P. No. 1018 of 2009 Date of Decision : September 24, 2009 Balwinder Kaur .... Petitioner Vs. State of Punjab and another .... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L. N. MITTAL * * * Present : Mr. B. S. Kathuria, Advocate for the petitioner. * * * L. N. MITTAL, J. (Oral) : Balwinder Kaur filed this Habeas Corpus petition alleging that her husband Sohan Lal and sister Kuldeep Kaur were picked up by respondent no. 2 – Dilbagh Singh, Sub Inspector, Police Station Banga, along with other police officials on 10.09.2009 at 08:00 P.M. When the petitioner protested, her sister Kuldeep Kaur also came there and made protest. Respondent no.2 and other police officials took both Sohal Lal and Kuldeep Kaur with them. On 11.09.2009 at 10:00 A.M., the petitioner along with 2-3 other persons, went to Police Station Banga and found both the alleged detenues sitting there. Respondent no.2 was requested to release them, but to no effect. Even request to Deputy Superintendent of Police proved futile. In view of the aforesaid averments, vide order dated Crl. W. P. No. 1018 of 2009 2 12.09.2009, Warrant Officer was appointed to search the premises of Police Station Banga or any other place pointed by the petitioner in order to secure the presence/release of alleged detenues Sohan Lal and Kuldeep Kaur. Accordingly, Warrant Officer accompanied the petitioner and others on 12.09.2009 itself. Report of the Warrant Officer is reproduced hereunder :- “In the above captioned case the Registry was pleased to nominate me as a Warrant Officer. Accordingly on 12.9.2009 itself, at about 4:25 p.m., I started my journey along with petitioner, her sister, her niece and nephew. The petitioner and her nephew were in the car occupied by me while the others were in a separate car. During our journey the petitioner was in constant touch with a person on mobile and repeatedly saying that "we are coming". On being asked with whom she is talking, she told me that on the other side her husband Sohan Lal is there and he is disclosing his location to them. It was a matter of surprise for me as to how a person in custody is using mobile phone and disclosing his location. Even the petitioner told me that they are in two cars and her husband is in car No. PB32-0050. I was further told that the police officials are planning to take Sohan Lal to a village near Garhshankar and instead of police station Banga, first a raid should be conducted there. Accordingly, we all turned towards Garhshankar. On reaching village Jhungian (Punjab) at about 7:40 p.m., a car was parked in the market on the Crl. W. P. No. 1018 of 2009 3 main road bearing No. PB32H-0050 and the petitioner pointed towards the said car. The help of local police namely HC Dilbagh Singh and Kewal (Home Guard, Punjab) was also taken, so as to avoid any untoward incident. We all came towards the car and noticed that a clean shaved person wearing blue t-shirt and a Sikh gentleman wearing Kurta Payjama were standing and talking to each other. The petitioner identified the blue t-shirt person as her husband Sohan Lal while the Sikh fellow told his name as HC Major Singh, P.S. Banga. I disclosed my identity to them. Another Sikh gentleman, wearing white kurta payjama, who was standing on the nearby chemist shop, also came there and told his name as Pargat Singh, HC. He was apprised of the orders passed by this Hon'ble Court and they were enquired about the presence of Sohan Lal there with them. Meanwhile, I checked the car and two police uniforms were lying therein in a carry bag. In the meantime another fellow named Iqbal Singh son of Bhupinder Kumar, r/o Mahila Gailan, claiming himself to be the owner of the car also came there The photostat copy of RC was also obtained. They were initially heard and their versions were reduced into writing. According to Sohan Lal, he was picked up by ASI Dilbagh Singh on the last night with Kuldeep Kaur, sister of his wife, however, she was Crl. W. P. No. 1018 of 2009 4 left by the police, but he was detained and was asked to give work (information) to the police, failing which they threatened to foist a case under the NDPS Act upon him. He further stated that on the pretext of giving information, he has brought the above-said persons there and now what they are stating is wrong. On the other hand, according to the above- said persons, it was Sohan Lal who first approached Iqbal Singh and then took them here on the pretext of giving information regarding his mother-in-law Rani wife of Bhoor, who is a convict and under-trial in NDPS cases and has escaped from the custody and had come there only acting upon the secret information of Sohan Lal, where I (Warrant Officer) have visited. The police officials further stated that Sohan Lal has come out of his own sweet will with them; he is not wanted in any case relating to P.S. Banga and can go anywhere he likes. According to the police, Sohan Lal did all this to exert pressure upon them, so that he be not asked to get his mother-in-law arrested. Interestingly, when Sohan Lal was asked as to why he has not raised any hue and cry since it is open market with plenty of people on the main road; he was not muffled, hand-cuffed or having fretters in the legs, the police post situated just near to that place and the car being stationed one, Crl. W. P. No. 1018 of 2009 5 he kept mum. He, as said above, frequently used the mobile phone and kept on giving information regarding his location. The circumstances in which Sohan Lal was found at that place were not prima facie suggestive of his illegal detention. (Observations made as per directions contained in order dated 29.4.2008 passed in Crl. Writ Petition No. 342 of 2008). I also intended to make a report in the Roznamcha of the police post, but HC Dilbagh Singh told that they are not maintaining any Roznamcha being police post and we have to go to Garhshankar in whose jurisdiction the police post falls. When I asked the petitioner and Sohan Lal to accompany me to police station Garhshankar, they flatly refused to go to any police station and immediately left the place by saying that they are going to their home. Statements of Sohan Lal, Iqbal Singh and HC Pargat Singh were recorded, which are annexed with the report along with photostat copy of RC of vehicle, for the kind perusal of this Hon’ble Court.” Statement of Sohan Lal and also statements of HC Pargat Singh and one Iqbal Singh have also been annexed with it. Perusal of the aforesaid report as well as statement of petitioner's husband Sohan Lal (alleged detenue) reveals that the petitioner made false averments in the petition to secure the appointment of Warrant Officer. Originally, it was alleged in paragraph-3 of the petition that the detenues were taken away on 11.09.2009 at 08:00 P.M., but the date was Crl. W. P. No. 1018 of 2009 6 corrected as 10.09.2009 by overwriting under initials. Similarly, in paragraph-4 of the petition, it was alleged that the petitioner, along with others, went to Police Station Banga on 12.09.2009 at 10:00 A.M., but again the date was corrected as 11.09.2009 by overwriting under initials. However, statement of Sohan Lal recorded by Warrant Officer on 12.09.2009 reveals that even according to his version, he was picked up on the previous night i.e. on 11.09.2009 and not on 10.09.2009, as alleged in paragraph-3 of the petition. If Sohan Lal was picked up on the night of 11.09.2009, then the question of Sohan Lal and Kuldeep Kaur being in Police Station at 10:00 A.M. on 11.09.2009, as averred in paragraph-4 of the petition, could not arise. In addition to the aforesaid, Sohan Lal has stated that Kuldeep Kaur, who was also picked up with him, was, however, left. However, the petitioner averred in the petition that Kuldeep Kaur also stood detained since 10.09.2009 night till 12.09.2009 i.e. the date of filing the petition. The matter does not end here. During the journey of the Warrant Officer along with petitioner and others from Chandigarh to Banga, the petitioner was constantly in touch with the alleged detenue Sohan Lal on mobile telephone. It aroused suspicion in the mind of the Warrant Officer that the alleged detenue could not be in contact on mobile telephone, if he had been detained. The petitioner, instead of taking the Warrant Officer to Police Station Banga, took him to Village Jhungian near Garhshankar. The petitioner's husband Sohan Lal was found present there and he had not been detained by anybody, although two police officials were also there. In fact, HC Pargat Singh stated that petitioner's mother i.e. mother-in-law of Sohan Lal (alleged detenue) had escaped from custody and Sohan Lal himself had brought the police officials to tell the whereabouts of his mother-in-law. From the aforesaid, it becomes manifest that the petitioner has taken this Court for a ride by making patently false averments in the Habeas Crl. W. P. No. 1018 of 2009 7 Corpus petition and by seeking appointment of Warrant Officer on the basis thereof. Consequently, I intended to initiate contempt of Court proceedings against the petitioner. However, on request of learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner is being let off with burden of exemplary cost. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed with exemplary cost of Rs.25,000/- to be deposited with the Registry of this Court within one month from today, failing which the case shall be listed for this purpose. September 24, 2009 ( L. N. MITTAL ) monika JUDGE