1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO. 2 OF 2008 SURENDRA SINGH JORA SINGH PUNJABI .. PETITIONERS VERSUS THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS. .. RESPONDENTS Ms. Sharmila Kaushik, Advocate appointed for the petitioner Ms. P. H. Kantharia, APP. CORAM: SMT. RANJANA DESAI & SMT. V. K. TAHILRAMANI,JJ. DATED: 30th June, 2010 P.C. The petitioner claims to be Sunder Singh Johar Singh Punjabi. He has filed this petition through jail. His basic contention is that he was kept in illegal detention by the police from 6/6/07 to 27/6/07. In this petition filed through jail he has given details of alleged police atrocities. It appears that thereafter a subsequent affidavit is also filed by him through jail denying the averments made in the affidavits-in-reply filed by the police officers. 2. This petition was on the board of the Division Bench presided over by Justice Bilal Nazki. After perusing the affidavits filed by Shri Shirish 2 Vitthal Wadekar, Assistant Inspector of Police Shivaji Nagar Police Station and Mr. Javed Ismail Shaikh, who was at the relevant time Senior Police Inspector, Thane City Police, Crime Branch the court expressed a prima facie opinion that the affidavits are contradictory. The court issued notice to the said officers to say why contempt proceedings be not initiated against them. Pursuant to this notice affidavits-in-reply are filed by both the officers. It must be noted at the outset that both the officers have tendered unconditional apology to this court. In paragraph 2 of his affidavit dated 12/8/09 Shri Wadekar has stated as under: “I say that in my affidavit dated 16.6.2008 I had incorrectly stated that the petitioner was not accompanied by the investigating team. I say that I was not aware that the petitioner who was a witness and/or the informant and who had accompanied the police party upon a Railway Warrant on 13/6/2007 was the said Soni i.e. Accused. I say that inadvertently the said paragraph was incorporated and now due to the said error this Hon’ble Court has issued the aforesaid notice dated 30/7/2009.” 3. Material paragraphs 4,5,6 and 7 of Mr. Javed Ismail Shaikh’s 3 affidavit may be quoted. “4. I say that on 11th June, 2007, the Police party produced the three arrested accused before the 12th Court, Thane and the said Court was pleased to grant remand till the 22nd June, 2007. Furthermore, the three arrested accused revealed voluntarily in the statement that the main leader of the said gang is one Papaji, a Sardar and few others and further said that, if the said person is brought before them they would be able to identify the said Papaji,who is instrumental in stealing and selling the motor vehicles by preparing forged documents. 5. I say that on 13/06/2007, PSI Wadekar, alongwith three Police Constables and the said Informant and/or witness Soni upon a Railway Warrant left Thane for Jaipur. I say that, the said PSI Wadekar as well as any of the officers were unaware that the said Soni, the witness has disguised himself and that the said Soni himself was the said Papaji i.e. the Petitioner herein. I say that on the 16th June, 2007, the said Police Party headed by PSI Wadekar reached Thane alongwith the recovered vehicle. 6. I say that on 17/06/2007 PSI Jagadale arrested 4 (1) Abdul Sattar Sharif Shaikh and (2) Virendra Rambridge Yadav, who were remanded to Police custody from the 18th June, 2007 to 29th June, 2007. 7. I say that on 18/06/2007, PSI Wadekar, PSI Riyaz Shaikh, PSI Thopate and four Constables alongwith one arrested accused alongwith present Petitioner upon a Railway Warrant left Thane to Kanpur. I say that the said team returned back on 24/06/2007, they recovered two motor cars and on the same day PSI Wadekar returned back to Control Room, Kalyan. I say that the I.O. PSI Jagadale who was in-charge of investigation on the aforesaid cases was on leave from 24/06/2007 for a month and the investigation of the said C.Rs. was handed over to PSI Dilip Patil on 24/06/2007. The said Dilip Patil resumed further investigation and upon interrogating the accused, who were in custody in the said C.Rs. it was revealed that the person i.e. The said Soni who claimed himself to be a Police Informer was none other than the said Papaji himself i.e. the petitioner herein. I say that accordingly the said PSI Patil arrested the petitioner herein on 27/06/2007”. 5 4. Before we deal with the petitioner’s grievance that he was illegally detained, it is necessary to refer to the affidavit of Shri Jagdale, Police Sub Inspector, presently attached to Crime Branch, Unit-I, Thane City, District Thane. In his affidavit Shri Jagdale has stated that 16 cases were registered against the petitioner prior to 1985. He was convicted in the said cases. Shri Jagdale has further stated that there are 28 cases registered against the petitioner in the year 1985 . List of these cases is given in the affidavit. Shri Jagdale has further stated that there are 11 cases registered against the petitioner from the year 1987 to 2000. Shri Jagdale has further stated that in the year 2006 to 2007 there are four cases registered against the petitioner out of which in three cases he has been acquitted and one case is pending trial i.e. C.R. 40 of 2007. It is further stated that in the said case he was released on personal bond on 5/6/2008. It is further stated that after being released on personal bond the petitioner has not remained present in the JMFC Court Vashi, therefore, the learned Magistrate issued production warrant against him on 29/3/2010. It is also stated that in one of the cases being C.R. No. 103 of 1992 pertaining to Bhandup Police Station, the petitioner has given a false name as Jitendra Govardhandas Shah. It is also stated that when the petitioner came to the Crime Branch, Unit-I, he represented to the police that he was Suresh Rajulal Soni. It is stated that from 1975 to 2007 there are total 59 cases registered against the petitioner 6 out of which the petitioner was convicted in 23 cases, acquitted in 5 cases, one case is pending trial and status of 30 cases is not known. Thus it is clear that the petitioner has imposing antecedents. He is involved in several cases and as of today there is a warrant pending against him. 5. We must note that initially the petitioner remained present in this court and was instructing his counsel. Thereafter, we asked learned APP to call the concerned police officers and get the entire history of the petitioner. Accordingly the police collected the necessary details and the details have been tendered in this court. After we gave direction to the police the petitioner stopped attending the court. We must also note that we were informed by learned counsel Ms. Kaushik that she had received a phone call that the petitioner was illegally detained and she was not aware in which jail he was lodged. Though we had by that time some idea about the antecedents of the petitioner, we were indeed concerned about the alleged illegal detention and, therefore, we asked Ms. Kantharia, learned APP to let us know whether the petitioner was detained. Ms. Kantharia took time of two weeks to make thorough inquiry and her inquiry revealed that the petitioner was not in the custody of any of the police stations. On the contrary the petitioner was avoiding the police because there is a warrant of arrest against him. As already noted by us the petitioner stopped attending this court. We were told by learned counsel for the petitioner that the 7 petitioner is obviously scared because he would be arrested. First of all the process of any court must be respected. The petitioner should have surrendered to the Court of JMFC Vashi. Since we are seized of the matter, if we were to come to a conclusion that the petitioner is being harassed by the police and there is an attempt to illegally detain him, we would have passed appropriate order protecting him. We have no doubt that the petitioner has purposely kept himself away. Learned counsel is not in a position to make a statement that he has contacted her in the near past. In such circumstances in our opinion, even a hearing should not be given to the petitioner because he has shown scant regard to the JMFC, Vashi and to this court by not remaining present in this court. 6. In any case since grievance about illegal detention was made, we carefully perused the affidavits filed by several officers before us. We find from the affidavits that the petitioner represented to the police that he was one Mr. Soni. He told the police that he would be helping them to bust the racket of theft of cars. He accompanied the police all over not as an accused but as an informant. On 13/6/07 PSI Wadekar along with constables and the petitioner, who had posed himself as Mr. Soni, the informant, upon a railway warrant left Thane for Jaipur. The police were unaware that the said Soni had disguised himself and that he himself was Papaji, the gang leader. When investigation of the cases was handed over to 8 PSI Patil, he arrested the petitioner on 27/6/07 when it was confirmed that the petitioner was Papaji, the gang leader. Since the petitioner moved all along with the police during the relevant period as an informant and not as an accused, it cannot be said that he was illegally detained. Shri Wadekar has acknowledged the minor error committed by him. We are not inclined to take a view that the officers have committed any contempt. In fact it is the petitioner who has tried to hoodwink the police and has also shown disregard to this court by not appearing before it and has shown disrespect to the process issued by JMFC, Vashi by avoiding it and remaining absconding. In any case both the officers have tendered apology before us which appears to us to be genuine. 7. Petition is dismissed. 8. Needless to say that contempt notices are discharged. (SMT. RANJANA DESAI, J.) (SMT. V. K. TAHILRAMANI, J.)