Crl. Writ Petition No. 1450 of 2011 1 In the High Court for the States of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh … Crl. Writ Petition No. 1450 of 2011 Date of decision: August 12, 2011 Sahabuddin ..Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others ..Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr.Justice L.N.Mittal Present: Mr. Satish Chaudhary, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Anil Kumar, DAG, Haryana for respondent Nos.1 to 3. ... L.N.Mittal,J.(Oral) Sahabuddin has invoked the jurisdiction of this court by filing the instant Habeas Corpus Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India alleging that the petitioner was present at his house on 12.7.2011. Respondent Nos.4 and 5 (Satpal Singh, Inspector & Satpal Singh, Sub-Inspector) along with some other police officials came at the house of the petitioner in civil dress and inquired about the petitioner's brother Sohrab who also came there in the meantime. Respondent Nos.4 and 5 immediately took away Sohrab who is in their illegal detention since then. Reply on behalf of respondent Nos.1 to 3 filed today in Court, is taken on record subject to all just exceptions. Copy given to opposite counsel. Averments made in the writ petition have been controverted in the reply. On the other hand, it has been alleged that FIR No. 243 dated 12.5.2011 under Section 420 and 406 read with Section 34 IPC was registered in Police Station Nuh against alleged detenue Sohrab, his son Akhtar, Sahidan and one unknown person. Akhtar was arrested on 13.5.2011 and some recovery was effected from him. Accused Sohrab was arrested by SI Sat Pal, respondent No.5 Crl. Writ Petition No. 1450 of 2011 2 on 18.7.2011 in the aforesaid case from village Khedlamor vide arrest memo. Annexure R-2. He was produced in Court on 22.7.2011 and was sent to judicial custody. It is also alleged that anticipatory bail application of Sahid was dismissed on 17.6.2011 and anticipatory bail application of alleged detenue Sohrab was dismissed on 23.6.2011 by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nuh and anticipatory bail application of Sahidan was dismissed on 19.7.2011. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file. Learned counsel for the petitioner reiterated the version as mentioned in the writ petition whereas State counsel reiterated the version mentioned in the reply. Learned State counsel on instructions from SI Sat Pal respondent No.5 (present in person in the Court) also stated that Sohrab accused was produced in Court on 19.7.2011 when he was remanded to police custody and on expiry of police remand period, he was again produced in Court on 22.7.2011 when he was remanded to judicial custody. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that after arrest on 18.7.2011, Sohrab was produced in Court on 22.7.2011 as per reply. However, this discrepancy has been clarified by the State counsel as observed herein before. Sohrab was produced in Court on 19.7.2011. He was remanded to police custody and again produced in Court on 22.7.2011 when he was remanded to judicial custody. Without entering into the aforesaid controversy, the fact remains that Sohrab was named as accused in the aforesaid FIR and his anticipatory bail application had also been dismissed by the Sessions Court on 23.6.2011, but these material facts were deliberately concealed in the instant writ petition. The instant writ petition is thus a crude attempt to create defence for accused Sohrab in the aforesaid FIR. The instant writ petition has been filed by concealment of material facts which amounts to misleading the Court. In fact, learned counsel for the petitioner even submitted that Sohrab was not aware of Crl. Writ Petition No. 1450 of 2011 3 the aforesaid FIR against him, but counsel for the petitioner had to withdraw this submission when it was pointed out that anticipatory bail application of Sohrab already stood dismissed on 23.6.2011. In addition to the aforesaid, when the writ petition was taken up for motion hearing on 15.7.2011, learned counsel for the petitioner stated that at this stage, petitioner did not pray for appointment of Warrant Officer and only notice of motion be issued. This submission also points to the oblique motive of the petitioner in filing the instant writ petition. If averments made in the writ petition had been true, the petitioner would have sought appointment of Warrant Officer but the petitioner specifically did not seek appointment of Warrant Officer at the time of motion hearing, although prayed for in the writ petition. It is thus manifest that process of this Court has been abused by the petitioner by filing the instant writ petition. This has is to be curbed with strong hand by imposing exemplary costs on the petitioner. For the reasons aforesaid, the writ petition is dismissed with costs of `10000/- to be deposited by the petitioner with the Registry of this Court within one month from today, failing which, the case shall be listed for this purpose. It is however, expressly made clear that nothing in this order shall have any bearing on the merits of FIR No.243 mentioned herein before. August 12,2011 (L.N.MITTAL) nk JUDGE