Crl.W.P.No.692 of 2011 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Crl.W.P.No.692 of 2011 Date of Decision: 8.4.2011 Santosh .....Petitioner Vs. State of Punjab and others ....Respondents .... CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH **** Present : Mr. A.S. Barnala, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. B.S. Sra, Addl.A.G. Punjab for respondents no.1 and 2. Mr. Tara Chand, Advocate for respondents no.3 to 6. .... AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J (Oral) This petition was filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, alleging therein that Sandeep Kumar, son of Moti Ram and Moti Ram, who is son and husband of the petitioner have been illegally detained by respondents no.3 to 6. On these allegations, notice was issued to the respondents. Reply filed on behalf of respondents no.3 to 6, in court today, is taken on record, wherein it has been stated that FIR No.64 dated 6.3.2011 stands registered against both Sandeep Kumar and Moti Ram at P.S. Chirawa, Distt. Jhunjunu, Rajasthan. It has been stated that the alleged detenues surrendered before the police of Police Station Chirawa and they were produced in court on 17.3.2011. Thereafter, they were sent in judicial custody by the learned Judicial Magistrate and at present are not in illegal detention as alleged. Crl.W.P.No.692 of 2011 2 Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner had earlier filed an application for grant of anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. before the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Moga, on the basis of a DDR No.14 dated 13.6.2010, registered at Police Station (South), Moga, under Sections 406/498-A IPC. The application of the alleged accused was allowed to the limited extent that if the police intends to arrest the applicants, three working days prior written notice be given to the applicants before their arrest. Counsel for the petitioner contends that despite there being such an order, Sandeep Kumar and Moti Ram were abducted by respondents no.3 to 6 on 14.3.2011 and were taken to Rajasthan, where their arrest was shown. He on this basis contends that the allegations which have been made in the writ petition are incorrect and thus, the detention of the detenues is illegal and there is violation of the order dated 26.7.2010, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Moga. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the submissions as put-forth by counsel for the petitioner. The writ petition is limited to the extent of release of alleged detenues, if they are in illegal custody/detention, which in the light of the fact that they are now in judicial custody, cannot be held so. The writ petition thus, does not call for any further orders in this regard. However, it would be open to the petitioner and the alleged detenues to take recourse to any other legal remedy, which may be available to them, in accordance with law. The writ petition stands disposed of accordingly. 8.4.2011 ( AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH ) GS JUDGE