Crl. W.P. No. 1436 of 2009 (O&M) [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Crl. W.P. No. 1436 of 2009 (O&M) Date of Decision: March 24, 2011 Manpreet Singh …..Petitioner Vs. State of Punjab and others …..Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M.S. BEDI. -.- Present:- None for the petitioner. Mr. Rajesh Garg, Addl. A.G., Punjab. Mr.Gianender Ahlawat, Warrant Officer -.- M.M.S. BEDI, J. (ORAL) Manpreet Singh had filed a habeas corpus petition alleging that his father Charanjit Singh had been detained by SHO/ Incharge of Police Station Sariali, District Tarn Taran, after he had been picked up on November 18, 2009 at 11.00 a.m. from his shop by said officer alongwith four other police officials. The petition was filed through Advocate Ms.Archana Sharma. A Warrant Officer was appointed with a specific Crl. W.P. No. 1436 of 2009 (O&M) [2] direction that Warrant Officer will find out whether Charanjit Singh, father of the petitioner, was in illegal detention of the police of Police Station Sariali. It was ordered that in case he is found to be in illegal detention, he would be released forthwith. Warrant Officer was asked to submit his report on November 25, 2009. As per the report of Warrant Officer, he alongwith the petitioner and his two companions had left Chandigarh at 6.10 p.m. on November 19, 2009 and reached Police Station at 1.15 a.m. on November 20, 2009. The search was conducted in the Police Station, Sariali in presence of ASI Kashmir Singh, but the detenue was not found in the police station. It was averred in the report of the Warrant Officer that the petitioner had refused to drop him back at Chandigarh on account of non- recovery of his father, the alleged detenue. The Warrant Officer had been directed to get down from the car at an secluded place near Jalandhar City at about 3.00 a.m. Since no police official was present, he was helpless and to get down from the car considering it safe for himself at that time. He submitted that after walking for about 2 kms., he got a rickshaw and reached Jalandhar Bus Stand from where he boarded a PRTC Bus and reached Chandigarh. The petitioner, in this manner, had endangered the life leaving him at an secluded place at odd hours of night. He requested for condemning the action of petitioner so that dignity of the Court is not lowered by such unscrupulous person by misbehaving with the representative of the Court. Crl. W.P. No. 1436 of 2009 (O&M) [3] The petitioner filed a Misc. application for placing on record his affidavit through his counsel on December 8, 2009. In the affidavit, the petitioner leveled allegations against the Warrant Officer that the detenue had been shifted at the office of CIA Staff, Tarn Taran, after the Warrant Officer had been appointed as the information regarding appointment of Warrant Officer had been received by the police in advance. In the affidavit, it was claimed that the Warrant Officer was informed about the shifting of the detenue but he paid no attention and he insisted that he would raid Police Station, Sariali. In the affidavit, the petitioner stated that the Warrant Officer asked the petitioner that his counsel had filed a wrong writ petition that as roving writ petition before the High Court had not been filed he could not raid any other place except Police Station Sariali. An allegation had been levelled against the Warrant Officer in the affidavit that the Warrant Officer demanded ` 10000/- and a bottle of whisky to visit CIA Staff, Tarn Taran in order to save the father of the petitioner from the police officials. A slip mentioning the brand of whisky has been produced as annexure P-1 to support the allegations of demand. It is further averred in the affidavit that the petitioner had gone to the liquor shop to get the demanded brand but could not buy the same as it was worth ` 3200/- beyond the financial capacity of the petitioner. It is claimed that the Warrant Officer got furious and used harsh language that he would teach him a lesson. Thereafter the petitioner allegedly reached Police Station Sariali at 1.30 a.m. but detenue was not found. On enquiry, other persons Crl. W.P. No. 1436 of 2009 (O&M) [4] present in the custody told Warrant Officer that Charanjit Singh was present there till evening and he had been shifted from that place after 5.00 p.m. Warrant Officer noted the statement of one lady, details of which are not known to the petitioner. The Warrant Officer allegedly warned the police officials that Charanjit Singh was in their illegal custody and shifted after 5.00 p.m. and confronted the police officials with the statement of lady. Thereafter the petitioner claims that he was made to sit outside the police station for long time. The Warrant Officer allegedly refused to conduct raid at CIA Staff, Tarn Taran. The petitioner alongwith taxi driver came back from Sariali where due to some technical fault taxi went out of order. The petitioner allegedly hired a Sumo being driven by Lakhwinder Singh and he alongwith driver Lakhwinder Singh and Warrant Officer went to Jalandhar in search of taxi but they could not get any taxi there so they went to Kapurthala in search of taxi, thereafter the Warrant Officer had himself gone in A.C. Bus of Punjab Roadways at 4.55 a.m. The Warrant Officer was made to sit in the Bus by petitioner and the taxi driver of the Sumo. The Warrant Officer allegedly threatened the petitioner. When the comments of the Warrant Officer were called for, it was clarified by the Warrant Officer that the affidavit dated December 8, 2009 was a counter-blast to his report dated November 20, 2009. The writ petition was listed in the Court on November 25, 2009 when the report was considered by the Court. In order to avoid any punitive action by the petitioner, he in collusion with his counsel, namely, Archana Sharma, had filed a false affidavit. The Warrant Officer has explained that the counsel Crl. W.P. No. 1436 of 2009 (O&M) [5] for the petitioner had approached him requesting him not to inform about the misbehaviour of the petitioner and that he had narrated her the treatment met by him at the hands of the petitioners. The Warrant Officer has given opportunity to file counter-affidavit in which he has clarified that he had accompanied petitioner alongwith two other persons Jharmal Singh and Palli. Mobile phone numbers of all the three persons had been noted by the Warrant Officer. It is averred by the Warrant Officer that while he was on his way alongwith said persons, at about 5.45 p.m., he received a call on his mobile from of Ms.Archana Sharma, Advocate, having mobile number 98141-39162 asking him to assist the petitioner in every manner and in return he would make him happy. But the Warrant Officer had informed her that he would strictly comply with the orders of the Court and she should not make such request. The petitioner had dropped the Warrant Officer at his house with promise that he was coming back after few minutes. The Warrant Officer waited for some time but when the petitioner did not arrive he made a call to the Advocate of the petitioner requesting her not to delay the departure as he had to attend the office next day. Counsel had called him back telling that the petitioner would be coming to him within short period. At about 7.15 p.m. the petitioner and his two companions reached the house of the Warrant Officer and they started for Police Station, Sariali. On the way the petitioner in and other persons alighted from the car after every 40/50 minutes and had a discussion with somebody on mobile phone. The allegation of demand of money or liquor has been denied by the Warrant Officer. The Warrant Officer had reiterated that on November 20, Crl. W.P. No. 1436 of 2009 (O&M) [6] 2009 at about 1.15 a.m. he had reached the Police Station Sariali but the alleged detenue was not found there. He has denied the other averments in the affidavit. It has been reiterated in the reply that since the order of the High court was limited only to the extent of visiting Police Station, Saraili he did not have any jurisdiction to go beyond that order. The Warrant Officer explained in his affidavit that he was left at isolated place near Jalandhar though the Indica Car was running in good condition. He walked about 2 kms. towards the city, got a rickshaw and ultimately reached Chandigarh by Bus. He had left Jalandhar at 5.00 a.m. He has denied that he had left Jalandhar in A.C. Bus or that an attempt was made to send him in Sumo taxi. A request was made by the counsel for the petitioner to get the matter inquired into. Instead of sending the matter for enquiry, I had opted to take up the matter for looking into the allegations of the petitioner against the Warrant Officer. The Warrant Officer was asked to produce the details of the telephone calls indicating that the Advocate had communicated with him from her telephone number. The details have been submitted. These have been taken on record as mark “WO1”. The antecedents of petitioner and his father were called for from the police as it appeared that the petitioner had concocted a story specifically mentioning the names of the driver and conductor of the deluxe Bus and the name of the taxi driver of Sumo. As per the report submitted by the police, it transpired that Charanjit Singh, father of the petitioner is a habitual offender having a criminal record. Details of the cases pending against him are as follows:- Crl. W.P. No. 1436 of 2009 (O&M) [7] “a) That in case FIR No.690 dated 17.12.2002 under Section 379, 120-B IPC PS Una (Himachal Pradesh) the accused person have been acquitted of the charge against them u/s 120-B and 379 IPC by the Court of JMIC, Una (H.P.) vide order dated 29.9.2004. b) That in case FIR No. 798 dated 12.12.2003 under Section 379, 34 IPC PS Una (Himachal Pradesh) in this case all the accused are acquitted from the charge under Section 379, 411, 468, 471 read with Section 34 IPC (their bail and surety bonds are cancelled and discharged by the Court of JMIC-III Una vide order dated 22.2.2006. c) That in case FIR No. 11 dated 25.1.2000 u/s 15/61/85 NDPS Act, PS Goindwal Sahib, District Tarn Taran, in this case the accused Charanjit Singh was convicted by the Court of Smt.Archana Puri, Addl. Session Judge, Amritsar. R.I. for 10 years with a fine of Rs.1,00,000/- and in default further RI for 1/1 years vide order dated 8.2.2005. d) In case FIR No. 158/2003 under Section 420, 465, 467, 471, 120-B IPC PS City Kapurthala. against Charanjit Singh which is pending for trial in the Court of Sh.Raj Kumar Garg, Chief Judicial Crl. W.P. No. 1436 of 2009 (O&M) [8] Magistrate, Kapurthala, and challan in the case noted above has since been presented in the Court on 16.9.20034 and charge in the case noted above has been framed against Charanjit Singh on 28.9.2004 and in this case ASI Lakhwinder Singh cross-examined on 7.4.2007, ASI Harbans Singh on 21.12.2007 and SI Sohan Singh CIA Staff, Kapurthala on 22.7.2009 and HC Balwant Singh cross-examined by the Ld. Trial Court on 9.10.2009, and Manmohan son of Dilbagh Singh has since been declared proclaimed officer in the case noted above by the Ld. Trial Court vide order dated 15.9.204 and the case is pending for trial and is fixed for 5.5.2010.” Since it was also a misconduct on the part of Advocate to have communicated with Warrant Officer n order to side with the petitioner and save her skin, counsel has also furnished an affidavit admitting that she had called Warrant Officer regarding the fixing up of the time and place where he was to be picked up. After going through the facts and circumstances of the case, it appears that the controversy cropped up as the Warrant Officer has refused to toe the line of the petitioner to search his father at a place which was not mentioned in the judicial order. After the father of the petitioner was not found in the place alleged, an attempt was made to persuade the Warrant Crl. W.P. No. 1436 of 2009 (O&M) [9] Officer to visit another place which he was not entitled to visit as there was no order directing him to visit any other place. The antecedent of a person is always relevant to determine his conduct. The father of the petitioner is an habitual offender and is a convict in a case of NDPS Act under Section 15. He is also an accused of preparing forged documents and his facing trial. The over doing of the petitioner in his affidavit is indicative of his clever approach. It appears to be a case where disgruntled litigant who has not been able to achieve his objective in habeas corpus petition has adopted dubious means to create a defence to the report of the Warrant Officer that he had been maltreated and left at a secluded place after the alleged detenue was not found at the place alleged. It is observed here that a Warrant Officer deputed by Court is an officer representing the Court. In this case, allegations of the petitioner and the counsel could have been believed if these have been levelled immediately after the incident. But in the present case, the report had been submitted on November 20, 2009 whereas the allegations have been concocted and leveled after a delay of 17 days as the affidavit was filed on December 8, 2009. No allegations were leveled on November 25, 2009 when the case was taken up in the Court. In view of the above circumstances, the habeas corpus petition is dismissed as having out-lived its utility. The allegations in the affidavit of petitioner Manpreet Singh and the allegations of the counsel are held to be not established beyond shadow of doubt. No action is warranted on the allegations. However, the Warrant Officer, present in the Court, has been Crl. W.P. No. 1436 of 2009 (O&M) [10] advised to remain careful from the unscrupulous elements and not to indulge in controversies in future. March 24, 2011 (M.M.S.BEDI) sanjay JUDGE