Crl.O.C.P. No.17 of 2009 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl.O.C.P. No.17 of 2009 DATE OF DECISION: May 24, 2011 COURT ON ITS OWN MOTION ...PETITONER VERSUS SATINDERPAL SINGH, DSP AND OTHERS ...RESPONDENTS CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SATISH KUMAR MITTAL. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.JEYAPAUL. 1. Whether the judgement should be reported in the digest? Yes/No ---- PRESENT: MR. G.N. MALIK, ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER. MR.JASBIR S. DHALIWAL, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.1. MR. PANKAJ BHARDWAJ, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.2. MR. S.S. SIAO, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.3. M.JEYAPAUL, J. 1. Zeenat w/o Harminder Kumar filed Crl.W.P. No.744 of 2009 invoking Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ in the nature of habeas corpus for release of detenue Harminder Kumar, husband of the petitoner and Dinesh Kumar and Shoki, friends of detenu Harminder Kumar from the illegal custody. Sr. Superintendent of Police, Mohali and SHO, CIA Staff, Kharar, District SAG Nagar, Mohali have been shown as respondents in the said writ petition. As per the interim order sought for by the petitioner, a Warrant Officer of this Court was appointed to search the premises of CIA Staff, SAS Nagar, Mohali for the release of Crl.O.C.P. No.17 of 2009 -2- the detenu. 2. In the preliminary report submitted by the Warrant Officer, it was disclosed that at 11.20 p.m. he knocked at the doors of CIA Staff, Kharar, but the door was opened only after 5-7 minutes. He was stopped from entering into the premises and his identity card was checked. In the adjoining narcotics premises shrieks were heard. The gate was again locked and was opened only after 5 minutes. Some persons were forcibly taking a person in the vehicle bearing registration No.HR05-2358. The officer who stopped him was Jatinder Pal Singh. 3. In the detailed report submitted by the warrant officer, it was stated that he proceeded to Police Station CIA Staff, Kharar accompanied by petitioner Zeenat as well as Kewal Krishan and Dara. He revealed his identity to the Sentry C.Kailash Kumar on duty. He was talking to someone else inside. The warrant officer again asked him to open the door, but he replied that they were trying to locate the key. In the meantime, some 4-5 police personnel in uniform came in a vehicle bearing registration No.PBJ- 6565 and knocked at the door. The door was immediately opened, but the Warrant Officer was not allowed to enter the gate despite revealing the identity and the purpose of his visit to DSP Satinder Pal Singh. After his entering into the premises the main gate was again locked from inside. DSP Satinder Pal Singh went away in the said vehicle after some time. It was thereafter he was allowed to enter the premises. When the petitioner started searching the premises calling the name of her husband Harminder Kumar, voices were being heard from the adjoining premises which was separated by about 6-7 feet high wall. The petitioner asked the Warrant Officer to Crl.O.C.P. No.17 of 2009 -3- save her husband. The Warrant Officer rushed to the gate to come outside to enter the adjoining premises, but the main gate of CIA Staff was again closed. The petitioner alongwith the police officials came out from the Police Station to the street. Some persons were struggling with a person as if to forcibly carry him in the vehicle parked at the door. The petitioner shouted “Save my husband; don't go with them; they will kill”. In the commotion, the warrant officer tried to go near the said vehicle, but in the meantime the vehicle fled away followed by a motorcycle. In the dim street light, he could note down the vehicle registration number HR05 2358 of the said vehicle. He also noticed a vehicle 'Lancer' No.HP51-1658 parked inside the CIA Staff premises which the petitioner claimed to be that of her husband. He left the premises at 11.47 p.m. 4. As the learned Single Judge expressed his considered view in the above facts and circumstances that contempt proceedings were necessitated as against DSP Satinder Pal Singh, SI Gurwinder Singh and Constable Kailash Kumar, the matter was placed before the Hon'ble the Chief Justice. As per the orders of the Hon'ble the Chief Justice, the contempt proceedings were placed before the Division Bench for disposal. 5. DSP Satinder Pal Singh in his reply affidavit has stated that as per the directions of the Superintendent of Police (Security and Traffic), District SAS Nagar, Mohali dated 3.7.2009, he checked night duties of the entire District SAS Nagar during the night of 3.7.2009. He, in fact, conducted a surprise check of CIA Staff, Kharar. When he reached the CIA Staff, Kharar, the door of the said building was opened by the Sentry on duty. He entered the building and conducted the checking. At that time, he Crl.O.C.P. No.17 of 2009 -4- was totally unaware of the presence of the Warrant Officer appointed by the High Court. The Warrant Officer also never revealed his identity to him. Had it been revealed to him, he would have facilitated his visit inside the CIA Staff for carrying out his assignment. Neither the petitioner in the Cr.l.W.P., nor the Warrant Officer approached him in connection with any surprise raid. He had no role to play in the incident. 6. S.I. Gurwinder Singh would contend in his reply affidavit that on the basis of the complaint lodged against Harminder Kumar and three others, they were summoned under Section 160 Cr.P.C. on 22.6.2009. The statement of other accused were recorded, but the statement of Harminder Kumar could not be recorded as he sought time till 2.7.2009, but in the meantime Crl.W.P. was filed before the High Court. The Warrant Officer did not find anybody in the CIA Staff, Kharar. The vehicle bearing registration No.HP51-1658 was taken into possession under Section 25 of the Police Act by ASI Pawan Kumar as the same was lying unclaimed near the Civil Hospital, Kharar. 7. Constable Kailash Kumar has submitted in his reply affidavit that on 3.6.2009, he took immediate steps to ensure the quick entry of the Warrant Officer into the CIA Staff, Kharar after the Warrant Officer disclosed his identity. The raid was conducted around 11.20 p.m. on 3.7.2009, by the Warrant Officer. As per the instructions of the superior officer, the gate could be opened only after due verification. The Warrant Officer knocked at the doors of the CIA Staff, Kharar. Before Constable Kailash Kumar could verify the identity of the Warrant Officer, DSP Satinder Pal Singh arrived at CIA Staff, Kharar in connection with surprise Crl.O.C.P. No.17 of 2009 -5- checking. Within about 4-5 minutes the gate was opened. He had not caused any delay in opening the gate to the warrant officer. 8. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in Crl.W.P. No.744 of 2009, would submit that the report of the warrant officer would disclose that he had been purposely stalled at the gate inspite of his disclosure of his identity in order to pave way for taking away the detenu to some undisclosed destination. The reply submitted by the respondent/contemnors would also reveal that they had not given an access to the Warrant Officer inspite of the fact that they were aware of the purpose of the visit of the Warrant Officer. 9. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondents/contemnors would submit that nothing has been made out to establish that the respondents wantonly committed contempt by restraining the warrant officer from entering into the CIA Staff, inasmuch as, the warrant officer could enter into the premises within about 4-5 minutes for the purpose of executing the assignment given to him by the High Court. The question of contempt for supine indifferences shown by the respondents for the directions of this Court does not arise for consideration. 10. We gave our serious consideration to the preliminary report as well as the detailed report submitted by the warrant officer in the light of the rival submissions made by the counsel on record. Three sets of allegations are found in the report submitted by the warrant officer. The first set of allegation is that he was not permitted to enter into the premises inspite of the fact that he disclosed his identity to the Sentry on duty. The fact remains that even as per the own admission of the warrant officer, he could Crl.O.C.P. No.17 of 2009 -6- gain access within about 4-5 minutes into the police station CIA Staff. Constable Kailash Kumar has come out with a satisfactory explanation that as per the directions of his superior officer, he had to first verify the identity of the person who intended to have access to the police station. In the meantime, it appears that DSP Satinder Pal Singh was on surprise checking and he gained entry into the police station CIA Staff. Just because there had been a delay of 4-5 minutes, we cannot jump to a conclusion that the warrant officer was wantonly kept at bay at the gate in order to cripple the execution of his assignment given by the High Court. 10. The second set of charge levelled by the warrant officer is that the moment he heard some voices from the neighbourood, he wanted to get out of the police station CIA Staff, but the door was closed from inside. Again 4-5 minutes time was taken by the Sentry to open the gate in order to give access to the warrant officer to go out to the street. The admitted fact is that S.I. Gurwinder Singh also accompanied him while he went out of the premises. The Sentry is supposed to keep the premises always locked in order to avoid the entry of unscrupulous elements into the premises of the police station CIA Staff. We cannot find fault with the act of the Sentry in locking the premises from inside after the warrant officer gained entry alongwith the petitioner and two others. Delay of 4-5 minutes in opening the gate for the warrant officer to go out to the street cannot be found fault with. 11. The other set of allegation levelled by the warrant officer is that when he came out of the police station, he found some persons struggling with an individual as if they were forcibly taking him and by then the Crl.O.C.P. No.17 of 2009 -7- petitioner Zeenat sought help of the warrant officer to save her husband. It is further submitted by the warrant officer that car of the husband of Zeenat was very much available in the police station. Firstly, the warrant officer could not zero-in on the identity of the persons who forcibly took away another person, nor could he identify the person who was taken away by those strangers. From the above utterances of petitioner Zeenat, we cannot jump to a conclusion that her husband Harminder Kumar was forcibly taken away by the police officials. The car allegedly owned by the husband of the petitioner found parked in the premises of the police station CIA Staff was satisfactory explained by the respondents. It was contended that the said vehicle taken possession under Section 25 of the Police Act as it was found lying unclaimed outside the Civil Hospital by ASI Pawan Kumar. 12. We do not find any willful disobedience on the part of the respondents in allowing the warrant officer armed with the authority of this Court to discharge his functions in the above facts and circumstances of the case. Therefore, the contempt proceedings initiated as against the respondents are dropped. Crl.O.C.P. No.17 of 2009 is ordered accordingly. (M.JEYAPAUL) JUDGE May 24, 2011 (SATISH KUMAR MITTAL) Gulati JUDGE