Crl. Writ Petition No.112 of 2010 ::1:: IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Writ Petition No.112 of 2010 Date of decision: 09.09.2010 Pappu .. Petitioner Versus State of Punjab .. Respondents Present:- None for the petitioner. Mr.R.A.Rawat, AA.G, Punjab, for respondent-State. * * * * AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J. Case has been called thrice. None has put in appearance on behalf of the petitioner. Perusal of the record indicates that after the initial issuance of notice and appointment of the Warrant Officer, none has put in appearance on behalf of the petitioner. I have gone through the record of the case and the report of the Warrant Officer Sh.Gursharan Singh Kang, dated 23.01.2010. The conclusions, as per the report of Warrant Officer, are as follows:- “Keeping in view the following facts, to my belief, it could not be concluded that the alleged detenus were either being detained illegally or there was any obstruction of whatsoever nature, to hamper their free movement:- (i) The hutments of the alleged detenus were located in open fields and there was no boundary wall; (ii) When I had reached at the place where the hutments of the alleged detenus/labourers were situated, the petitioner could not point out any person to me who may be threatening them, keeping them in illegal custody or even keeping a watch on their Crl. Writ Petition No.112 of 2010 ::2:: movements; (iii) No complaint had been made to the police regarding their alleged illegal detention; (iv) Other labourers working at the same brick kiln had stated that they had not seen any anti social person in the area, who may be harassing/threatening the labourers; (v) Out of the 8 alleged detenus, as per the petitioner himself, the petitioner and Shri Ramesh (alleged detenu No.7) had left the brick kiln for Chandigarh on 14.1.2010. Further, on the day the raid was conducted i.e. 19.1.2010, Shri Sonu (alleged detenu No.2) had also left the brick kiln for making arrangements for hiring the vehicle. Out of the alleged detenus, three persons are minors aged 3 to 6 years. Thus, it can be safely inferred that there was no obstruction of whatsoever nature, to hamper the free movement of the alleged detenus and the alleged detenus were moving about, as per their own sweet will; (vi) The office of the brick kiln and the place where the hutments of the alleged detenus were located, were situated at a distance of about 4 KMs from each other. When I had reached the place where the hutments were located, none of the private respondents or any person acting on their behalf, was present there to keep a watch on the movements of the alleged detenus. Accordingly, I, along with the petitioner and Shri Ramesh (alleged detenu No.7) left the place. The petitioner and Shri Ramesh (alleged detenu No.7) alighted at Kharar and I returned to my residence”. In view of the above, no further action is called for. The writ petition stands dismissed. September 09, 2010 (AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH) sukhpreet JUDGE