IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Writ Petition No.154 of 2011 Date of decision: 17th February, 2011 Sonu … Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and others … Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA Present: Ms. Prabhdeep Kaur, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. J.S. Bhullar, Assistant Advocate General, Punjab for respondents No.1 to 3. Mr. Mukesh Bhatnagar, Advocate for respondents No.4 and 5. KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA, J. (ORAL) Present criminal writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ in the nature of habeas corpus seeking release of the detenues, 31 in number, whose particulars have been mentioned in para No.4 of the petition and who have been stated to be illegally detained at the brick kiln of respondent No.4. On January 19, 2011, this Court had appointed a Warrant Officer, who submitted his report dated 22nd January, 2011, wherein it was stated as under: “… … … On reaching there I found that neither the owner of the Brick Kiln nor any Jamadar nor any Munshi was present at the Brick Kiln. None of the alleged detenues mentioned in para No.4 of the criminal writ petition were even found there. The other labour present at the Brick Kiln did not disclose anything. The petitioner tried to locate his men but was unable to locate them and thereafter, told me that he do not want to carry his search any further. Thereafter, I had no other option except to return back to Chandigarh… … …” Thereafter, counsel for the petitioner submitted that when the Warrant Officer reached at the brick kiln the alleged detenues were Criminal Writ Petition No.154 of 2011 already taken away by the brick kiln owner and they were not found there. On insistence of the counsel, again a Warrant Officer was appointed on January 27, 2011 to visit the brick kiln. The Warrant Officer submitted his report dated 1st February, 2011 stating that he searched at various places mentioned by representatives of the petitioner, but the alleged detenues could not be found. Therefore, on February 2, 2011, this Court passed a detailed order directing the Senior Superintendent of Police, Ludhiana to constitute a special team to find out the whereabouts of the alleged detenues. Relevant portion of the said order reads as under: “In the present writ petition, a grievance has been made that respondents No.4 and 5 have unlawfully detained 31 persons, particulars of whom have been mentioned in para No.4 thereof. Twice, this Court has appointed a Warrant Officer on the request of learned counsel for the petitioner. The Warrant Officers searched various places but the abovesaid persons have not been found. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the detenues have been wrongfully confined by respondents No.4 and 5 at some unknown place. Before this Court makes any comments, it will be necessary that an effort is made to search for the detenues. Accordingly, the Senior Superintendent of Police, Ludhiana, is directed to constitute a special team to find out whereabouts of the alleged detenues, whose particulars are mentioned in para No.4 of the writ petition. He shall submit his report to this Court after two weeks from today.” In compliance of the order reproduced above, Ishwar Singh, IPS, Commissioner of Police, Ludhiana has filed a short reply by way of an affidavit dated 16th February, 2011. It is stated therein that a special team comprising of Additional Deputy Commissioner Police-4, Additional Deputy Commissioner Police (Crime) and Assistant Commissioner Police, Sahnewal was constituted, which has conducted search at various brick kilns, but the alleged detenues were not found. 2 Criminal Writ Petition No.154 of 2011 Counsel for the petitioner has stated that she has no further instructions, as the petitioner has not contacted her. Twice the Warrant Officer has been appointed. A special investigating team constituted under the orders of this Court has also carried search at various places. It seems that the petitioner has unnecessarily caused ruckus without giving any specific particulars. Hence, this Court cannot come to the rescue of the petitioner and the present petition is hereby dismissed. [KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA] JUDGE February 17, 2011 rps 3