1 t 435 CriminalMisc No M 24518 012007 4 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA ATCHANDIGARH 1 Criminai Misc No P 24518 of 2007 Date ofdecisionl I4e2O1l Indu Duggal Petitioner Versus 1 Stateof Haryanaand others 0 0 I 2 Criminal Misc No M 22838 of 2008 t5 I Ranbir Singhand another Z etitioners Versus r DirectorGeneral of Police Haryanandothers I Iespondents C Z CORAM HONBLE MSUSTICE RITU BAHRI m 0 Presentl Mr ManjeetSinghAdvocate Z for the petitionern CRMNo N24518 of 2007 Qn Mr Raminder SinghChauhanAdvocate for the petitionersn CRM No 122838 of 2008 Mr KshitijSharma AAG Haryana MrSukhdeepSSandhuAdvocate forthe CBI RITU BAHRI Je This order shall disposeof both the criminal miscellaneouspetitions as the same are connectedmatters The facts are taken up from Criminal MiscellaneousNo 124518 of 2007 The presentpetitionunder Section 482 CrOC has been Oled by the petitionerlwifel for issuingdirectionsto the respondents to entrust the P 0 A Batra Amit Sh. Charanjit Batra 2012.07.10 14: 00 True Scannend Copy Of Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 16:20 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 436 CriminalMisc NoW 24518 of 2007 e2 of the case FIR No85 dated286006 underSection365 IPC read with Section34 IPC registered at Police Station NaggalChaudharyDistrict PJ to the CentralBureau of so as to recoverthe husband of the petitionerwho is stated to be kidnappedby No8 on 2662006 It is allegedin the petitionthat respondent No8 Is a HeadConstableand a fair investigation in the case was not conducted 1 Brief facts of the case are that the husbandof the petitionerwas 0 workingas PeonlHeadmessengerwith StateBank of India Bhungarka Branch 0 District The petitioneris havingtwo sons the elder son namely I t5 AshwaniKumar e Ashu is working in a CallCenterat Delhi The petitioner IS I residing at Bhiwani On 175 2006 No8 alongwithhis wife and Z brothercame to the houseof petitionerand stated that her son has takenaway 2 r his daughterFrom this datethere was alwayscontinuous tension belweentwo familiesbecauseof the alleged of Ashwan Kumar and daughter of I C No8Ranbir Singh It is allegedin the petitionthat on 2662006 Z No8 alongwithunknown personsabductedthe husbandof the m petitionerfrom the bank and FIR No85 dated2862006 underSectlon365 IPC m Z read with Section 34 IPC was registered at Police Station Naggal tl District The petitioner the policeto conduct fair investigation and trace her husband When respondentNo8 came to know about registrationof FIR againsthim he got an FIR bearingNo 320 dated 0772006 underSections366363120B and 506IPCregistered at Police Station City Bhiwani againstthe petitionerand her husband and other familymembers statingthat the son of the petitionerhad abducted his daughter in connivance with other familymembers In the abovebackgroundboth the familieshave been involved in Iitigation The flrst status report and investigationreport was filed on 2182007 by RajenderSinghHPS DeputySuperintendent of PoIice State Crime 1 1 Batra Amit Sh. Charanjit Batra 2012.07.10 14: 00 True Scannend Copy Of Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 16:20 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 437 r 4 V Criminal Misclo 24518 of 2007 3e Branch Gurgaon As per this report respondentNo847anbir Singhwas interrogated on 0932007 and on 0272007 He triedto commit suicidein the presence of policeofficlalson 0482007 wherehe was presentalongwith Angrej Kaur An FIR No 214 dated0482007 underSections353186309 and506 IPC read with Section 34 was registered at PoIiceStationCiviILines Gurgaonagainst No8 and AngrejKaur As far as tracingof petitionershusband 1 Naresh Kumar Duggalis concerned vide this status report he could not be 0 traced In complianceof order dated 2882008 replydated 09092008on 0 I behalf of RajenderKumar IPS of PoIice State Crime Branch C5 Haryana Madhubanwas filed On 092008 respondent No842anbirSingh I appearedbeforethe IllaqaMagistrate and recordedhis statement statingthat he Z could not givehis consent for Iie detectortest as he was under treatment from PGIMS Rohtak In View of his above situation Iie detector test could not be I conducted on him On 2882009 anotherstatus reportof RamkishanHPS DeputySuperintendent of Police StateCrime Branch Faridabadwas filed In Z this status report notices have been sent under Section 160 CrPC to the ClO suspectsfor Polygraph Test but RanbirSinghand AngrejKaur had refusedto 7 Z appearbefore the Court On 04112008 search raids were conducted at Narnaul Ll and Goneda 2ajasthanl etc for tracingthe abductedNaresh Kumar Duggatbut nothingmaterialwas found On 15112008 fromthe detailsof unidentiOedead bodies found in the areas of adjoiningpolicestations of PoliceStationNaggai Chaudharyand policestations of the States of HaryanaDelhi and Rajasthan regardingthis incident were collected and matched with the of abducted Naresh Kumar Duggalbut his features did not match with them Despitebest efforts the PolygraphyTest could Rot be conductedon Ranbir Singh A reward of Rs00001 Jpees fiftythousand only was gotdeclared for anyonegivingany information Ieadingto a in this case A final status report dated 192011 has been filed by Ashok Kumar HPS Deputy m a WeVe e Batra Amit Sh. Charanjit Batra 2012.07.10 14: 00 True Scannend Copy Of Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 16:20 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 438 Criminal Misc No1 24518 012007 4 of Police State Crime BranchMadhuban As per this report despitethe investigation beingcarrledout on dayto daybasisand despiteraids beingconductedat Narnauiand Goneda etc for searching abducted Naresh Kumar Duggalbut nothingmaterialwas found Duringinvestigation Ranbir Singhsmobile was found in VillageNehchanaDistrict Rewari NH8 at the time of offence so Ranbir Singhis a suspectin this case Duringinvestigation 1 personsnamed RajbirDevduttServsukh Tarun Umakantand Narenderet 0 were examined who contacted Ranbir Singhon 2662006 but no clue was 0 I found A reward of Rs 1000001rupeesone Iaconlylwas got declaredfor C5 anyonegivingany informationIeadingto a in this case and the I same was advertisedthroughNational Dailyand pamphletsin the areas Z surrounding the placeof incident and States The same was aiso 2 r broadcast on Doordarshanand All India Radio Delhi and Rohtak The mobile I phoneinterceptionof suspectHead Constabie Ranbir Singhwas put on 0 survelliancefor over two months for gettinganyinformationaboutthe abducted Z Naresh Kumar Duggalbut no informationwas collected As per the inquest 0 reportunidentified dead bodiesdid not match with the of abducted I7 Z Naresh Kumar Duggalas reportedby SumerSinghDeputySuperintendent of Police In FIR No 320 dated0732006 underSections363366506 and 1208 IPC registered at PoliceStation CityBhiwani challanhas been presentedagainst accused Ashwanal Ashu son of Naresh Duggalon 1262008 and was beingcarried out by the DeputySuperintendent of Police CID Crime vide ordersof the Director Generalof PoIice CID Haryanadated212009 I haveheardIearnedcounsel for the partiesand have oone through thecase file carefully Mr ManjeetSinghAdvocate counsel for the petitionerhas argued that despitethe incldent took piacein the year 2008 the policehas not been able to make a in the case Even Polygraphy Test on Ranbir Singh Batra Amit Sh. Charanjit Batra 2012.07.10 14: 00 True Scannend Copy Of Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 16:20 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 439 4 Criminal MiscVo4 24518 of 2007 5 Head ConstabIehas not been conductedby the agency The mattershouldbe transferredto CBI and petitioners husbandNareshDuggaibe gottraced Mr KshitijSharma AAG Haryanahas arguedthat ever since the FIRNo85 dated 2862006 underSection 365 IPC readwith Section34 IPC was registered Sincere effortsto trace out the husbandof petitionerwere madeby 1 r the police RespondentNo8 was thoroughly by the 0 The informationwith regardto abductionof petitionerfrom the StateBank of 0 I India Bhungarka Branch by three persons was submittedto the policeby the C5 Branch Managerof the bank At that time respondentNo8 was not named by I the saidBranch ManagerDuring the policeverifiedthe details of Z mobile phoneof respondentno8 givenby the petitioner Thereafter r No 8 was joinedin but he did not giveany I reply He has furtherarguedthat an FIR was got registeredbyrespondentNo8 under Sections 36613631120B and 506 IPC at Police Station City Bhiwani on Z 0772006 againstthe petitionerher husbandand her sons The IS ClO going on againstthe petitionerIll that case In complianceof order dated e Z 28 2008 efforts were made to get Iie detectortest of Ranvir SinghHead No8 But he did not givehis consent On 250008 of the main suspectie Head Constable Ranvir Singhwere shown to the officerslofflcials of the State Bank of India and eye witness of the incident namelyNeerajson of Sa41avirTheyail deniedand said that it was verydifficult to tell by seeingthe that the said Ranvir Singhwas involved in An effort was made to get test of SmtAngrej Kaur wife of Prem Chand and Smt Premlata wife of Ashwani Kumar but they did not appearbefore the Court Search raids were conducted jn Narnaul and Goneda Rajasthanlbut no address of Naresh Kumar Duggalwas found SubsequentlY rewards were also announced by the police Mr KshitijSharma AAG Haryana 1Is 1l Batra Amit Sh. Charanjit Batra 2012.07.10 14: 00 True Scannend Copy Of Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 16:20 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 440 0 CriminalMisc No 24518 of 2007 6 assuresthat as prthe status reportsdated2182007 2882008 and 1912011 sincereefforts have been made by the policeto trace the abducted Naresh Kumar but no materialwas found The respondent Head Constabie Ranvir Singhhad refused to get test and this test cannot be conductedwithout his consent The disputeis the result of inter caste marriage betweenthe childrenof both the families 1 r Aftergoingthroughthe entire facts this Court is of the view that 0 Sincere effortshave been made by the investigatingagency to trace the 0 abducted Naresh KumarDuggaleven though test has not to be C5 conducted on Ranvir SinghThe SupremeCourt in case Smt SelWandothers I versus State of Karnataka and others 201021RCR 1minall896 has held Z that these typesof test cannot be conductedwithoutconsent of the concerned 2 C person The SupremeCourt has examined the issue whether any voluntarily administrationof scientifictechniquesnamelyNarcoanalysisPolygraphie I detectorl test and Brain ElectricalActivation Profile BEAP test violatesthe right Z againstselfincri mination enumeratedin Article 201 of the Constitution C0 INhetherit causes reasonablerestrictionon the personalIiberty as understoodin 7 the context of Article 21 of the Constitution Protection is availableunder Article Z 20310fthe Constitution not onlyto personswho haveformallyaccusedbut also Om to suspectsIt also extend to cover the witnesses who apprehendthat their answers exposedthem to criminalcharges in the ongoing and even in the cases other than the one being The SupremeCourt in paragraph 109 of the judgment has referred to the observation made byJustite KrishnaIyerin 197812 SCC 424 at page 435 The Iearned Advocate GeneraI influenced by American decisions rightlyagreedthat in expresslonSection 161 of the Code might cover not merely accusations already registeredin poiicestations but those which are Iikelyto be the basis for exposinga person to a criminal charge e IJ ee Batra Amit Sh. Charanjit Batra 2012.07.10 14: 00 True Scannend Copy Of Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 16:20 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 441 5 CriminalMiscVo1 24518 of 2007 7 Indeedthis widerconstructionif applicable to Article 203 the constitutionalclause to the explicit statementof the in Section 16121 This Iatter provision uses the expressionexpose himself to a criminalcharge Obviously these wordsmean not only cases where the person is alreadyexposedto a criminal chargebut also instanceswhich will exposehim to criminalchargesIl r It was furtherobservedId at pp451452 paraO Il To be a witness againstoneself is not confinedto the 0 0 particularoffenceregarding which the questioningis made I but extends to other offencesabout which the accusedhas C5 reasonableapprehensionof implicationfrom his answer I This conclusionalsoflowsfrom tendency to be exposed to a criminalcharge A criminal chargecovers any criminal Z chargethen under or trial or which threatensthe accused I The followingparametershave been Iaid down by the Supreme C Court for voluntary administrationof the impugned techniquestestsl Z No Lie Detector Tests should be administeredexcept 10 on the basis of consent of the accused An option shouldbe givento the accused whetherhe wishes to 7 Z avail such test iil If the accused volunteersfor a Lie Detector Test he should be givenaccess to a Iawyerand the physical emotionaland Iegalimplicationof such a test shouldl be explainedto him bythe policeand his Iawyer Oiil The consent should be recorded before a Judicial Magistrate ivJ Duringthe hearingbeforethe Magistratethe person allegedto have agreedshouldbe dulyrepresentedby a Iawyer vl Atthe hearingthe person in questionshould also be told in clear terms that the statement that is made shall not be a confessional statement to the Magistratebut will have the status of a statement LO eer Batra Amit Sh. Charanjit Batra 2012.07.10 14: 00 True Scannend Copy Of Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 16:20 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 442 1 r CriminalMisceNo M 24518 of 2007 8e madeto the police vil The Magistrate shallconsiderall factors relating to the detentionincluding the Iengthof detentionand the natureof the vi The actualrecording of the Lie Detector Test shallbe done by an agency such as a hospita0 andconductedin the presenceof a Iawyer 1 vii A full medicaland factualnarration of the manner of r the informationreceivedmust be takenon record fl 0 In the facts of the presentcase Ranvir Singhdid not giveany 0 consentto the PolygraphyTest which was soughtto be conducted upon him I C5 The disputein the presentcase relatesto the interecastemarriage between the I familiesof the accused and the and despitethe detailed Z conducted no infirmltyhas been pointedout by counselfor the 2 r petitionerin the investigation so that it can be referred for further investigation to CBI I In view of the above the matter does not requireto be transferred Z to CBI m The criminal miscellaneouspetitionis dismissed m Z 2 13r ICloll RITUBAHRI VijayAsijia JUDGE 1 rA71 1 n1 5e 71 1 Batra Amit Sh. Charanjit Batra 2012.07.10 14: 00 True Scannend Copy Of Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 16:20 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document