Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

RAJ KAUR versus STATE OF PUNJAB & ORS

High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Raj Kaur v. State of Punjab & Ors - CRWP-808-1996 [2007] RD-P&H 820 (23 January 2007)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.

Crl. W.P. No. 808 of 1996

DATE OF DECISION : 24.01.2007

Raj Kaur

.... PETITIONER

Versus

State of Punjab and others

..... RESPONDENTS

CORAM :- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SATISH KUMAR MITTAL
Present: Mr. Gurmeet Singh, Advocate,

for the petitioner.

Mr. N.S. Gill, AAG, Punjab.

* * *

Petitioner Raj Kaur wife of Harbhajan Singh (alleged detenue) has filed this petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ in the nature of habeas corpus for the production of her husband, who is alleged to be in illegal custody of respondent No.3.

2. In the petition, which was filed in the year 1996, it was alleged that the petitioner was married with Harbhajan Singh on 21.3.1992 and they were leading a peaceful and happy married life, but on 19.6.1993, when husband of the petitioner was taking her to her parents house and when they reached at Mansa Bus Stand, a police party caught hold the petitioner's husband and took him away, though the petitioner protested. Harbhajan Singh was taken by the police in a police van, but no clue was given. It was further alleged that the petitioner went to Police Station, Mansa, but no one recorded her statement. Thereafter, she went to her parents house. It is further alleged that after four days, Darshan Singh, uncle of the detenue, came to the petitioner's parental house and disclosed that her husband was in the custody of Bhikhi Police. It is alleged that the petitioner took a deputation of the Panchayat to SHO, Police Station Bhikhi, but he flatly refused to disclose any information regarding the whereabouts of her husband. It is further alleged that house of the petitioner at village Boha was destroyed in order to pressurize the family and ultimately, in the year 1996, the instant petition was filed, when husband of the petitioner was not released by the police.

3. Pursuant to the notice, reply was filed on affidavit by Superintendent of Police (Detective) Mansa, in which it has been stated that the allegations levelled by the petitioner regarding the illegal custody of her husband are incorrect and concocted. It has been specifically denied that husband of the petitioner was arrested by the police on 19.6.1993. It is stated that as per the police, husband of the petitioner was an accused in case FIR No. 45 dated 31.5.1990 registered at Police Station Boha under Section 307 IPC and Section 25/54/59 of the Arms Act. In the said FIR, it was alleged that Harbhajan Singh, husband of the petitioner, fired with his revolver and Bhola Singh son of Sarup Singh resident of Village Boha received injuries on his left scapular region, left buttock and other parts of the body. In the said case, he was arrested on 2.6.1990 and a revolver and 3 live cartridges were recovered from him. It has been further stated that challan was presented on 21.12.1990 and subsequently, the petitioner was granted bail on 14.12.1992 by Additional Sessions Judge, Bathinda.

Thereafter, he remained absent on 2.3.1993 from the court proceedings and subsequently, he was declared proclaimed offender by the court on 4.10.1994. It has been stated that husband of the petitioner was not arrested on 19.6.1993, as alleged nor he was kept in illegal custody. Now, as per the police record, he is proclaimed offender.

4. I have heard the arguments of learned counsel for the parties and perused the contents of the petition as well as reply.

5. In this case, Superintendent of Police (Detective) Mansa, in his affidavit, has specifically denied the factum of arrest of the husband of the petitioner on 19.6.1993 and it has been stated that as per the police record, he was released on bail on 14.12.1992, in case FIR No. 45 dated 31.5.1990 registered at Police Station Boha under Section 307 IPC and Section 25/54/59 of the Arms Act and thereafter, he was declared proclaimed offender. In view of these facts, no writ in the nature of habeas corpus can be issued as the alleged detenue is not in illegal custody of the police.

6. Counsel for the petitioner contends that in view of the fact that husband of the petitioner is not traceable, therefore, an enquiry be ordered.

As far as this petition is concerned, it was filed by Raj Kaur in the year 1996 praying for release of her husband Harbhajan Singh from the illegal custody of the police and as per the reply, he is not in custody of the police. In view of this factual position, this petition for habeas corpus does not survive.

However, in case the husband of the petitioner is missing, it will be open for the petitioner to take other appropriate steps in accordance with law.

7. Dismissed. January 24, 2007 ( SATISH KUMAR MITTAL ) ndj JUDGE


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.