Crl. W. P. No. 1146 of 2011 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Case No. : Crl. W. P. No. 1146 of 2011 Date of Decision : August 05, 2011 Surinder Kumar .... Petitioner Vs. State of Punjab and others .... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L. N. MITTAL * * * Present : Mr. S. D. Bansal, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Shailesh Gupta, DAG, Punjab for respondent no. 4. * * * L. N. MITTAL, J. (Oral) : Surinder Kumar has filed this Habeas Corpus writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India alleging that petitioner's nephew Aman had been illegally detained by respondent no.4 ASI Sohan Singh. Warrant Officer appointed by this Court visited the concerned Police Station along with petitioner's friend Pardeep Kumar @ Manga. The alleged detenue was found standing near water cooler lying in open space in the premises of Police Station. The alleged detenue supported the petitioner's averments that he had been detained in the Police Station after being picked up from the shop of the petitioner on 23.05.2011 at 02:00 P.M. On the other hand, Sentry/PHG Mohar Singh as well as Crl. W. P. No. 1146 of 2011 2 respondent no.4 ASI Sohan Singh told the Warrant Officer that the alleged detenue had just come to the Police Station to drink water and large number of persons come daily to the Police Station for drinking water. The alleged detenue was also continuously using his mobile telephone and was having currency note of Rs.100/- denomination in his pocket. Since the alleged detenue was not required by the police in any case, he was allowed by the Warrant Officer to leave the premises of the Police Station in the company of Pardeep Kumar @ Manga. Learned counsel for the petitioner prays that inquiry be held regarding alleged illegal detention of Aman. However, it would not be conducive to order an inquiry in the instant writ petition. There is version of the petitioner and alleged detenue on the one hand and counter version of the police officials on the other hand. The purpose of Habeas Corpus writ is to secure presence, production and release of alleged detenue. The said purpose had already been achieved. In writ jurisdiction, it would not be appropriate to go into the disputed questions of fact regarding version and counter-version of the parties. In view of the aforesaid, the instant writ petition is disposed of, with liberty to the petitioner and the alleged detenue to proceed in accordance with law regarding alleged illegal detention of the alleged detenue Aman. August 05, 2011 ( L. N. MITTAL ) monika JUDGE