433 1 e1 CWP No14029 of 2009 1 e INTHE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB 8 HARYANA CHANDIGARH CWP No 14029 of 2009 Dateof decision July 3 2011 Bhola Singhand another 1 Petitioners Versus 0 0 Stateof Punjaband others I t5 Respondents I CORAMl HONBLEMRJUSTICE KANNAN Z Present Mr PawanKumar Senior Advocate with Mr SwapanShoreyAdvocate for the I Mt N Pawar AdditionaiAdvocate GeneralPunjabfor respondentNos 1t03 Z Mr S S SwaichAdvocate for respondent NoA CO IA1e 7 Z repoitersof Iocalpapers may be allowed 1 to see thejudgment7 No r 2 Tobe refeued to the reporters or not7 No 3 Whether thejudgment should be reponedin the digest7No K Kannan J Iorall 1 Thepetitioner seeks for of 31acs on thegroundthat he was illegallydetained by the fourth respondentwho is the SHO at the PoliceStation Bhadaur District Barnala and also seeks for action as well as a criminalcase to be registered againstthe fourth respondent 2 The basis for the petitionIS a findingalready Uma 2014.04.09 16: 18 Scanned True Copy of Original PHHC,Chandigarh Sahil Soni 2016.03.21 12:26 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 434 CWP No14029 of 2009 2 1 bythis Court while disposingof a Criminal Writ Petition NoA80 of 2007 on 11 009 This Court while renderinga judgment in a habeas corpus a Warrant OHicer to search for detentionwho was Iocked at the Police Station The petitioner was seen keptin custodywithout registering any case him and released on 32007 at about 10 O PM The Court had also secured a reponfrom the Chief m who had stated that the petitionerhad been pickedup Judicial 0 bythe Police at the instance of one HardeepSingh Malkiat Singh 0 0 Keetu Sadhu Ragi Kala Singhand others This Court had held as followsl t5 Aftertakinginto considerationall the circumstancesI do I not deem it to enter into the fact finding Z as to who had actuallycaused injurieson the of Bhola Singhor whether he has been injured r bythe privatepersons with the help of the policeor whether he has been injuredby the police at the I 2 instanceof the persons It is Ieft open to the Z and Bhola Singhto claim for theinjuriesreceivedby him in accordancewith the Iaw OO ofthe Iandbut the fact remains that on the petition filed m3 bythe petitionerBhola Singhwas foundin the custody Z ofpolicewithouttherebeingany entryin the roznamcha Thisis primafacie a proofof his havingbeen keptin ll in violation of Article 21 of the Constitutionof India Such a of keepinga person in police is not onlyviolativeof the fundamentalrightsof of a citizen under Article 21 of the Constitutionof indiabut is a clear violationof the naturalhuman rights Il 3 The Couit while concludingthe case awarded o100001 as symbolic and observed funher that the order wouldnotin any manner hamperthe rightsof the petitioner or to take Iegal in accordance with Iaw These observationshave been relied lA4V Uma 2014.04.09 16: 18 Scanned True Copy of Original PHHC,Chandigarh Sahil Soni 2016.03.21 12:26 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 435 lv CWP No 14029 of2009 3 on bythe to make a claim for againStthe fOUh and for action 4 The counsel appeang on behalf of fourth contends that the conclusiveOndingwhich had been brought the Warrant Officers reportand the reportof the Chief JudiciaI Magistrate was that he hadbeen held in custodyat the policestation 1lr without being before the Magistrate within 24 hours and for that 0 he had been sumcientlypunished with a One of 100001ebeing 0 SHO of the Police Station However he was himselfnot for I 49 the petitioner in the policeIock up or for the injuriesallegedto have beensustainedbyhim Z 5 Thecounsel for the fourth respondent refersto the of the Warrant Officer himself who has stated that he had been 1 beaten by some and broughtto the policestation Bhadaur at I 30 PM on 32007 The repo also states that after he was broughtto l0 Z the PoIice Station no have been givento him by the police oftlcials Theonlystatement attributedto the policewas that he had been f detainedin the station The Warrant Omcer had noted that there vm Z was no roznamchamakingan entiywith regardto Bhola Singhalthoughit tl wasclear that he had been at the policestation at the time when the Officer went The counsel also pointsout to the fact that even in therepoitof the Chief JudicialMagistrateit onlybore out that the petitioner was said to be at the Tpoint Bhadaur when one AmarjeetSingh son of Chattar Singh also had come About 10 to 12 persons armed with and sticks had descended from a white Scorpioand Accent Car One Kala had alightedfrom the Car and calied out that Bhola Singh shouldnot be The reportof the Chief Judicial Magistraterefers to several persons joiningup to beat up the petitionerIt was only that flve policeoftlcialswere supposed to have come to the place Uma 2014.04.09 16: 18 Scanned True Copy of Original PHHC,Chandigarh Sahil Soni 2016.03.21 12:26 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 436 l CWP No14029 of 2009 4 1 andhad tried to save him Police officials had conversationwith Malkiat Singh Keetu and Iaterthe petitioner was taken to the Police station 6 Neitherthe repottof the Warrant Omcer nor repon of the Chief Judicial makes any reference to the fact that the had beaten up the petitionetOn the other hand the petitionerhas received injuriesin some which was said to have existed between 1 two Unions The IearnedSenior counsel for the petitionerreiies theentries in MLR which showed that he had serious injuriesThere is on 0 0 nothingon record to show that the injurieswere caused to the fouh I Even this Court has not recordedsuch a fact in Crl Writ C5 I PetiOonN0A80 of 2007 7 Thereis no scope for to the founh Z respondent or a direction for action unless injurieshad been l to have been caused bythe fourth respondenthimself There had I been howevera serious wrong of the detention of the petitioner any valid or Iegallysustainable The Court had already Z 100001 Without pointingout that the foui1h CO was for such injuries a provisionfor further mnv Z cannot be providedWhen this Coun was grantingIibenyto Qm thepetitioner that he would be entitledto in accordance with Iaw it should onlybe understoodthat the petitionercould make out the for higherclaim by provingthe injuriesafter givingproper evidencerelatingto how the injurieswere causedthe painand sufferin the Iossof income suffered etc The order alreadypassedby this Court in the Criminal Writ petitiongivesno room for the petitioner to come by of anotherwrit petition when no additionaldocumentsare produced beforethis Court Ifthe Court was grantinghim an it was oniy to helpthe to adduce proper evidence to make a foundation for such a claim All the documentson which the petitio placesreiiance are Il Uma 2014.04.09 16: 18 Scanned True Copy of Original PHHC,Chandigarh Sahil Soni 2016.03.21 12:26 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 437 l 1 CWP No14029 of 2009 5 l Ip theveiy same documents which were alreadythere before the Coult when it passedthe order 8 do not alsofind any for directingany action againstthe respondentThe detentionalreadymade atthe Police Stationhas resulted in a Judicialreprimand and a further of damagesof 100001 againstthe fourth respondent which Ill 1 meets with ends ofjustice my vleW CJn had alsocalled upon the IearnedSenior counsel 0 0 the course of arguments to pointout to me the various Iapsesthat could be to the fourth respondent as SHO by reference to the C5 I Police Orders and the Police Manual and the nature of actions under the various rules for the breach complained against Z thefouith respondet The counsel for the petitioner gave no assistance to the Court exceptsomecase Iaw that publicIaw remedyis available for I for Iegalconfinement This is too elementary a proposition by referenceto the citationsmade byhim to even requirea Z would holdunder the circumstances that the petitionercannot secure the 11 reliefs bysuch a half heartedapproach to the case 7 Z 10 Thewrit petition is dismissed 0 1KKANNANI JUDGE JulY22 2011 rarchana 61 Uma 2014.04.09 16: 18 Scanned True Copy of Original PHHC,Chandigarh Sahil Soni 2016.03.21 12:26 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document