IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Criminal Writ Petition No.1611 of 2011 (O&M) DATE OF DECISION : SEPTEMBER 5, 2011 SURJIT SINGH ....... PETITIONER(S) VERSUS STATE OF PUNJAB & ANR. .... RESPONDENT(S) CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA PRESENT: Mr. Munish Puri, Advocate, for the petitioner(s). Ms. Rajni Gupta, Addl.AG, Punjab. AJAI LAMBA, J. (Oral) 1 Reply on behalf of Superintendent, Central Jail, Ludhiana, has been filed in court today, which is taken on record. 2 On 23.8.2011, a comprehensive order was passed to the following effect:- “This petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, for issuance of a writ in the nature of habeas corpus, directing the respondents to release the detenue from illegal custody of Central Jail, Ludhiana. It has been pleaded that the petitioner had been convicted in consequence of lodging of FIR No.165 dated 26.6.1996 under Section 304, Indian Penal Code, Police Station, Division No.5, Ludhiana. The petitioner was convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 5 years and to pay fine of ` 10,000/- (in default, rigorous imprisonment for one Criminal Writ Petition No.1611 of 2011 (O&M) 2 year). It has specifically been pleaded that the petitioner has already undergone the entire sentence and has also deposited the fine. On undergoing sentence, the petitioner was released on 21.7.2005. It has been brought out that even remissions were granted by the State of Punjab. It has also been pleaded that the record of Central Jail, Ludhiana, bears out the fact that the petitioner has undergone the entire sentence. It has been pleaded that upon issuance of suo motu notice by this Court in CRM 17234-M of 2011, a detailed report was asked from the States of Punjab and Haryana and Union Territory, Chandigarh. Pursuant to such directions, over-zealous police officials illegally detained the petitioner and put him behind bars, despite the fact that the petitioner had already undergone awarded sentence by the court of law. Detention, in such circumstances, is illegal and in violation of constitutional rights vested in the petitioner. The certificate of release issued by Assistant Superintendent/Ward Officer, Central Jail, Ludhiana has been placed on record as Annexure P-1. Vide order dated 17.8.2011, Superintendent, Central Jail, Ludhiana, and Commissioner of Police, Ludhiana, were directed to file their affidavits as to under what circumstances the petitioner had been taken in custody. Affidavit of Dr.Sharad Satya Chauhan, IPS, Commissioner of Police, Ludhiana City, Ludhiana, has been filed in court today, which is taken on record. The reply admits the lapse on the part of police officials. The action of taking the petitioner in custody is sought to be justified, however, on the ground that neither the record pertaining to remissions granted to a convict is available with the local police nor such record was shown by the Criminal Writ Petition No.1611 of 2011 (O&M) 3 petitioner at the time of his arrest. It has been said that the action was taken as a consequence of order passed by this Court in CRM 17234-M of 2011. It has specifically been admitted that the petitioner/detenue had already undergone sentence awarded by the court of law for the offence committed by the petitioner. Order dated 31.5.2011, passed by this Court in CRM 17234-M of 2011, reads as under:- “It has been submitted that approximately 3000 cases of re-arrest are pending. The District and Sessions Judges of the State of Punjab, Haryana and U.T. Chandigarh have reported that the said re-arrest warrants have been received back unexecuted. Notice of motion to all the Senior Superintendents of Police of various Districts of the State of Punjab, Haryana and U.T. Chandigarh for 16.08.2011. The list of accused whoa re absconding and are required to be re- arrested due to one reason or the other be also sent along with notice of motion. The Senior Superintendents of Police of each District shall submit the status report qua the re-arrest of the accused pertaining to these districts before the next date of hearing.” The effect of the order is that the accused who are absconding, are required to be re-arrested. The action and conduct of the respondents has been found to be in total disregard of the civil rights vested in petitioner-Surjit Singh, who had completed his sentence and yet has been arrested without verification of facts. Taking a person in custody is a serious matter. Article 21 of the Constitution of India provides that no person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law. Under the procedure prescribed by law, the petitioner was taken in custody and after completion of period of sentence, was released. Criminal Writ Petition No.1611 of 2011 (O&M) 4 In such circumstances, it was required of the police officials to, at the first instance, ensure from the jail authorities whether the petitioner had completed his term of sentence, or not. It could only be determined whether a person is absconding or not, after carrying out the necessary exercise. It appears that the police authorities of Ludhiana City, Ludhiana, in total disregard to the facts and circumstances of the case, have been effecting arrest of the persons, even though they have undergone the awarded sentence. A person released, after undergoing sentence, is neither required to, nor is expected to carry the orders granting remission on his person. Rather, before approaching a citizen of the country to effect his arrest, or to detain him, the agency that seeks arrest or detention is required to verify whether procedure established by law permits and allows that authority to detain/arrest the citizen. A misleading stand is being taken that it is in consequence of order dated 31.5.2011, passed by this Court in CRM 17234-M of 2011, that the petitioner was arrested. The explanation cannot be accepted because the petitioner has been deprived of his liberty as promised under the Constitution of India. Be that as it may, the petitioner needs to be compensated. As an interim compensation, it is directed that the respondents shall pay to the petitioner ` 25,000/- on the adjourned date in Court, for keeping the petitioner in custody without having any authority in law to do so. The compensation to be paid to the petitioner can be recovered at a later stage, after fixing the responsibility of the official/officer, who took the petitioner in custody, without verification of facts and without authority of law. Criminal Writ Petition No.1611 of 2011 (O&M) 5 Adjourned to 5.09.2011. Copy of the order be given to Ms.Gupta under the signatures of the Bench Secretary.” 3 Learned counsel for the respondent-State has paid a rum of ` 25,000/- to the petitioner as interim compensation, for taking him in custody without any authority of law being vested in the police officials. 4 No further orders need be passed in this petition. 5 The petition is, accordingly, disposed of. September 5, 2011 ( AJAI LAMBA ) Kang JUDGE 1.To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2.Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?