Criminal Writ Petition No.865 of 2011 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Writ Petition No.865 of 2011 Date of Decision : 05.07.2011 Awdesh Kumar Avasthi .... Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and others .... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L. N. MITTAL. * * * * Present: Mr. Jaideep Verma, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Shilesh Gupta, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab for respondents No.1 to 3. Mr. Baljinder Singh, Advocate for respondents No.4 and 5. * * * * L.N.MITTAL, J. (ORAL) Awdesh Kumar Avasthi has filed the instant Habeas Corpus petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India alleging that respondents No.4 and 5 (Police officials of Rajasthan Police) accompanied by respondent No.3 (Police official of Ludhiana Police) took away petitioner's brother Durgesh Kumar Avasthi on the night of 29.03.2011 at about 10.00pm and since then, the detenue is in illegal custody of respondents No.3 to 5. Respondents No.1 to 3 have alleged that respondent No.3 never accompanied respondents No.4 and 5 to the premises of the petitioner and rather Nem Singh, Inspector from Rajasthan Police along Criminal Writ Petition No.865 of 2011 -2- with other employees of Rajasthan Police get recorded Daily Diary Report Annexure R-1 dated 29.03.2011 at 9.35pm that the said employees of the Rajasthan Police were returning after searching the accused in FIR No.465 of 2010 under Section 394 IPC of Police Station, Sandhala, Jaipur City. Respondents No.4 and 5 in their replies have alleged that search was made for petitioner's brother, who was wanted as accused in some cases but the petitioner's brother was not found. Petitioner's averment that petitioner's brother was taken away by respondents No.4 and 5 along with respondent No.3 has been denied by respondents No.4 and 5 also. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that inquiry is required to be conducted into the whereabouts of petitioner's brother who was picked up and taken away by respondents No.3 to 5. The contention has been opposed by counsel for respondents stating that petitioner's brother was never picked up by respondents No.3 to 5. Copy of DDR Annexure R-1 prima facie belies the contention of the petitioner that respondent No.3 had accompanied respondent No.4 and 5 to raid the premises of the petitioner. On the contrary, petitioner's brother is required in some cases by Rajasthan Police. It is the version of respondent No.4 and 5 that petitioner's brother is evading arrest in the said cases. It is prima facie improbable that respondents No.3 to 5 Criminal Writ Petition No.865 of 2011 -3- would detain the petitioner's brother illegaly for months together. For the reasons aforesaid, I find no merit in the instant writ petition, which is accordingly dismissed. However, this order is without prejudice to right of the petitioner to avail of any other remedy that may be available under the law. ( L. N. MITTAL ) JUDGE 05.07.2011 'raj'