Punjab-Haryana High Court
Varun Kumar vs State Of Punjab And Ors on 22 July, 2022
CRWP-788 of 2019 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
204
CRWP-788 of 2019
Date of Decision:22.07.2022
Varun Kumar
...... Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab and others
...... Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMOL RATTAN SINGH
Present: Mr. Abhaysher Singh, Legal Aid counsel,
for the petitioner.
Mr. Rana Harjasdeep Singh, DAG, Punjab
Mr. Rajesh Mehta, Advocate,
for respondent no.6.
*****
AMOL RATTAN SINGH, J. (ORAL)
This petition has remained pending since the year 2019, with the
prayer therein being that a person by the name of Chandan Kumar (stated to be the
brother of the petitioner), had been illegally detained by respondent no.3, i.e. the
In-charge/Station House Officer, Police Station B-Division Urban, Sultanwind
Gate, Amritsar.
Notice having been issued in the petition and a warrant officer ordered
to be appointed to 'conduct a raid' on the aforesaid police station, vide an order
passed by this court on 08.09.2019, thereafter the warrant officer submitted his
report dated 10.09.2019, eventually stating to the following effect:-
"In compliance to the orders of the Hon'ble Court, it is fairly
submitted that undersigned Chandan Kumar S/o Gulab Singh R/o
1 of 7
3436, Gali Kakezian Katrer Bagan, Amritsar. He was found available
in police lock up of P.S. 'B' Division Amritsar at the time of my visit
at 00:50 AM dated 09/09/2019. As per the statement of ASI Manjit
Sing (1406) he is in legal custody as he has been arrested in
connection with complaint dated 08/09/2019 (at Flag 'M') submitted
by Rajesh Kumar R/o 109, Rani Ka Bagh, Amritsar and in this regard,
necessary entry has been made in DDR Register at Sr. No.39 dated
08/09/2019 at 21:30 PM (at flag 'X'). Alleged detenue denied all
version of night duty officer and stated that he was brought to police
station on 05/09/2019 (at Flag 'Y' and 'Y1'). As per the orders of
Hon'ble Court regarding C.C.T.V. footage of the four cameras
installed in police station, Instructions given to Incharge to keep
intact and arrange to produce the C.C.T.V. footage before Hon'ble
Court on 10/09/2019 and Incharge assured undersigned in his
statement that all footage of C.C.T.V. cameras installed in police
station; w.e.f. 05/09/2019 to 09/09/2019 will be submitted before the
Hon'ble Court (at Flag Z). On the asking of petitioner, visit closed and
undersigned returned to Chandigarh. Accordingly report is submitted
before the Hon'ble Court.
At 10:30 AM dated 10/09/2019, petitioner in the instant
petition informed the undersigned that he is being chased by the
police and police official might detained him before reaching in
Hon'ble High Court and he made this call from the mobile
no.8053323023 and undersigned asked him to contact his lawyer."
Thereafter, on 17.10.2019, this court had directed the Commissioner
of Police, Amritsar, to file an affidavit annexing therewith all DDR entries with
regard to the arrest/detention of the alleged detenue (Chandan Kumar) including
any entry with regard to him being summoned to join investigation; and with the
Commissioner further directed to also annex therewith footage of the CCTV
2 of 7
cameras (installed in the police station), recorded from 05.09.2019 till the time that
the warrant officer had entered the police station, with such CCTV footage to
cover all entry and exit points to and from the police station.
The said CCTV footage alongwith the affidavit of the Commissioner
of Police was placed on record, as recorded in the order dated 13.11.2019.
Thereafter the Commissioner of Police filed another affidavit dated
30.12.2019 which has again been referred to by learned counsel for the petitioner,
to submit that as stated in paragraph 4 thereof, the aforesaid Chandan Kumar was
found to have entered the police station at 21:19:48 hours (09:19 p.m.
approximately), accompanied by a Head Constable; and with respondent no.4
(Rajesh Kundra) found to have entered the police station at 21:22:36 hours on the
same night. Eventually Chandan Kumar was brought out of the lock up upon the
warrant officer reaching the police station on the intervening night of September
08/09.2019, at 00:45 hours.
In paragraph 5 of the said affidavit, it is also stated by the
Commissioner of Police that from the enquiry conducted in the matter, it stands
proved that Chandan Kumar was kept in illegal detention "for taking preventive
action against him vide DDR entry no.39 dated 08.08.2019", such illegal detention
being by SI Lakhwinder Singh of Police Station B-Division, Amritsar, with
departmental action recommended to be initiated against him.
Before that, another affidavit dated 14.12.2021 was filed by the
Commissioner of Police, Amritsar, as has been pointed to by learned counsel for
the State, wherein it is stated in paragraph 6 that departmental action was taken
against two police officials, i.e. the SHO of the police station at that time
3 of 7
(Inspector Gurwinder Singh) and the Addl. SHO, i.e. Sub-Inspector Lakhwinder
Singh, and with the departmental enquiry having concluded, with five years
service of both the officials having been forfeited with cumulative effect.
He again thereafter points to paragraph 9 of the affidavit dated
30.12.2019, filed by the Commissioner of Police, to submit that in fact FIR no.240,
dated 29.12.2019, had been registered at Police Station B-Division, Amritsar,
alleging therein the commission of an offence punishable under Section 342 of the
IPC.
Mr. Rana, learned DAG, Punjab, submits that, as per his instructions,
even the report under Section 173 of the Cr.P.C. in the context of that FIR has
been submitted to the competent court.
That being so, with the detenue having been released in 2019 itself
and thereafter with action also taken against the erring officials, though various
orders have been passed by this court thereafter and other affidavits have also been
filed by the different officers, it is not considered necessary to refer to them for the
purpose of this petition; and though Mr. Mehta, learned counsel appearing for the
aforesaid SI Lakhwinder Singh (respondent no.6.), submits that the enquiry against
the said respondent is wholly erroneous and in fact the CCTV cameras do not
disclose any such illegal detention, no comment thereupon is made by this court,
with obviously the said respondent always at liberty to take his remedy against
either in departmental action taken against him, and obviously in respect of the
criminal proceedings that are stated to have been launched against him.
At this stage, Mr. Mehta however points to the affidavit dated
17.08.2021 filed by the said respondent (vide CRM-W-971 of 2021), from which
4 of 7
he points to Annexure R-15, which is seen to be a copy of a petition bearing
CRWP no.2763 of 2020 filed by Sangeeta Devi wife of Chandan Kumar, Chandan
Kumar himself and the petitioner in the present petition, i.e. Varun Kumar, seeking
protection of their life and liberty, which allegedly was in danger at the hands of
respondents no.5 to 9 therein, two of those respondents being Rahul Kundra and
Rajesh Kundra (who have also been impleaded in the present petition as
respondents no.5 and 4, respectively, though in their capacity as partners of one
M/s M.K. Traders).
Respondents no.7, 8 and 9 in that petition are seen to be one Anil
Sharma, Sales Officer in Dabur India Ltd., (with him stated to be working "under
M.K. Traders") and Head Constable Sikandar Singh and the Addl. SHO,
Lakhwinder Singh (respondent no.6 herein).
Mr. Mehta points to the comparative chart of some contradictions (as
contended before this court), between the pleadings made by the petitioner in the
present petition and the pleadings in that petition, which he submits are completely
contradictory to each other.
He further submits that the said petition was disposed of by this court
(co-ordinate Bench) on 14.07.2021, duly noticing the reply filed by the Deputy
Commissioner of Police, Detective, Amritsar City, and also referring to the orders
etc. passed in this petition.
All in all, his contention is that the petitioner and his brother have
been making contradictory statements and on the basis of such contradictory
statements respondent no.6 has suffered an order of punishment in departmental
proceedings and is now also facing criminal proceedings.
5 of 7
Having considered the above, as already observed, this is a petition
seeking issuance of a writ of habeas corpus, and with the detenue having been
released and action taken against those who were found guilty of such illegal
detention, respondent no.6 is obviously always at liberty to challenge any order
passed against him and to take his defence in the criminal proceedings ongoing
against him.
Learned counsel for the petitioner on the other hand has referred to a
judgment of the Supreme Court in Union of India and others v. Luithukla (Smt.)
and others 1999(9) SCC 273, to submit that though a detenue may have been got
released after a petition seeking a writ of habeas corpus is filed; however the court
would continue with the petition and eventually award even compensation to the
detenue, and therefore, the enquiry got conducted by the Commissioner of Police,
Amritsar, having found respondent no.6 and even the SHO responsible for illegal
detention of Chandan Kumar, this court would also award appropriate
compensation to him.
Learned State counsel submits that the SHO himself was found only
guilty of lack of supervision, though of course respondent no.6 was found guilty of
having illegal detained the aforesaid Chandan Kumar (which learned counsel for
respondent no.6 again has vehemently refuted), it is considered appropriate that the
detenue would be paid Rs.50,000/- by respondent no.6 in view of the enquiry
conducted, and the affidavits to that effect filed by the Commissioner of Police,
Amritsar.
Hence, to repeat, with the person found to have been illegally detained
as per the affidavit of the Commissioner of Police, Amritsar, having been duly
6 of 7
released and an enquiry in the matter having been held and taken to its logical
conclusion, there would be no reason to further continue with the present petition,
which is therefore disposed of with the direction given hereinabove.
July 22, 2022 (AMOL RATTAN SINGH)
dinesh JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether Reportable Yes/No
7 of 7
