Rachpal Kaur Bains vs State of Punjab

J.B. Garg, J.

Mrs. Rachpal Kaur Bains wife of Justice Ajit Singh Bains (retd.), resident of house No. 22, Section 2, Chandigarh, has filed the present writ petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ in the nature of habeas corpus alleging that her husband Justice Ajit Singh Bains (retd) was returning from the Golf Club, Chandigarh, as usual and on 3.4.1992 when he left the premises of the said Club at 10.30 a.m. he was arrested by the Ropar Police. It was on 4.4.1992 at about 7.00 a.m. that her son R.S. Bains succeeded in collecting information from the Senior Superintendent of Police, Ropar, and came to know that Justice Ajit Singh Bains was in the custody of Ropar police; that the premises of the residential house of Justice Ajit Singh Bains were also searched by the police and its details are given in para 13 of the petition. It has been prayed that an order should be passed for immediate release of Justice Ajit Singh Bains. There was also an allegation that Justice Ajit Singh Bains, aged 70 years, was hand cuffed and ill treated as well.

A Warrant Officer was appointed by this Court on 6.4.1992 and Shri S.S. Aulakh, acted as such, who visited Police Station, Ropar. He found that Daily Diary Report No. 20 dated 4.4.1992 at 7.30 P.M. was found recorded which contained a mention regarding the arrest of the detenu in FIR No. 41, dated 31.3.1992, under Sections 124A, 153A, 505 (1) of the Indian Penal Code and under Sections 3 and 4 of the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 and also under Section 13 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967.

A short affidavit of Shri B.S. Randhawa, Superintendent of Police, Ropar, dated 8.4.1992 has been placed on record today and it also contains a specific mention that Justice Ajit Singh Bains was arrested in the case arising out of F.I.R. No. 41 dated 31.3.1992 which besides other offences referred to above, includes offences under Sections 3 and 4 of the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987. The detenu was first produced before the District Magistrate, Ropar, on 5.4.1992, who remanded him to Police Custody till 7.4.1992 and thereafter, he was produced before the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Anandpur Sahib on 7.4.1992, who has remanded the detenu to judicial custody till 21.4.1992.

This is a case where at the time the present petition was instituted, the petitioner did not exactly know that for what purposes and under what provisions Justice Ajit Singh Bains was arrested by the police. By now it has been clarified in para No. 1 of the affidavit, which contains the details of the case in which the detenu has been arrested. In this regard, learned Deputy Advocate General Punjab, placed reliance on Talib Hussain v. State of Jammu and Kashmir, A.I.R. 1971 S.C. 62 wherein it was observed that it was sufficient to point out that in habeas corpus proceedings the Court has to consider the legality of detention on the date of hearing. The matter is at an early stage of investigation and the detention in such cases shall first be looked in to by the Designated Court. The present petition is for the purpose of habeas corpus and the respondent State Government has brought on record that Ropar Police has arrested Justice Ajit Singh Bains for cognizable offence under the provisions referred to above.

The learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to Bhim Singh, MLA v. State of Jammu and Kashmir and others, 1986(1) R.C.R.(Criminal) 348 : AIR 1986 Supreme Court 494 where a Member of Legislative Assembly of Jammu and Kashmir was prevented from attending the Session of the Legislative Assembly and his arrest and was disliked. Here the detention is alleged to be under Section 3 and 4 of the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, as well and the facts and circumstances are distinguishable.

Whether the detenu, who had been a Member of the Bar and also a member of the Bench was actually handcuffed as well, shall be a question of fact. If the answer is in the affirmative, it was really deplorable. The Sessions Judge, Ropar, is hereby ordered to hold an enquiry whether Justice Ajit Singh Bains (retd) was hand cuffed by the police or not and furnish his enquiry report within a period of two months from today to this Court so that the detenu or the petitioner may be able to seek other appropriate remedy in this regard.

The learned counsel for the petitioner has laid considerable stress on the contention that the detenu should be brought to the Court in person. In the order dated 6.4.1992 passed by this Court, it was mentioned that the detenu was to be produced in the Court in the alternative. Since the detenu is in judicial custody, his production for hearing and disposal of this writ petition is not considered essential in view of Kanu Sanyal v. District Magistrate, Darjeeling and others, AIR 1973 Supreme Court 2684, referred to by the learned Counsel for the State of Punjab.

In view of the reasons given above, the present writ petition fails, except the relief recorded about holding of an enquiry, and is hereby dismissed.