Rattan Singh vs Ranjit Singh, S.I.C.I.A.Staff and ors.

M.M. Punchhi, J.

This petition for habeas corpus was filed on 30th July, 1983 to get released Kulwant Singh detenu as allegedly he had been arrested by Ranjit Singh, SubInspector C.I.A. Staff, Gurdaspur, on 25th June, 1983; detained illegally thereafter and had been beaten up severely resulting in some fractures of his bones.

Rule was issued for 2nd August, 1983. Service on the respondent could not be effected. The matter had to be kept adjourned from time to time. On 9th August, 1983, the process sent to the respondent was returned back as Moharrir Head Constable Kulwant Singh and A.S.I. Sukhjinder Singh of Police Station Saddar, Gurdaspur had reported thereon separately that the respondent was out on official duty. These two respondents seemingly remained ignorant of the salutary rule that a high prerogative writ of habeas corpus served on any member of a police Station, where the detenu was alleged to be confined, was good service against all the members of the police force in that police station. It was, therefore, their bounded duty to inform immediately Ranjit Singh, SubInspector, respondent, about the receipt of the writ of habeas corpus at the police station. Their returning the process was high dereliction of duty; rather it was obstructive in nature. It is in these circumstances that on 19th August, 1983, I on my own added them as respondents and ordered for issuance of fresh process.

Twice again the service could not be completed in the normal way as in one instance the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gurdaspur thought that the time was less for effecting service and in the other the process was misdirected to another station. These state of affairs are being put on record to highlight the light way in which such high strung process is handled. Such practice adopted by concerned agencies in that regard is highly derogatory to the fundamental right of liberty enshrined in the Constitution.

Deviating the process through the Senior Superintendent of Police, Gurdaspur this time, Ranjit Singh respondent as also the two added respondents have put in appearance and have filed replies. According to Ranjit Singh SubInspector, the detenu was arrested on 27th June, 1983 and was medically examined under Court orders on 30th June, 1983, but no injury was found on the person of the detenu. It is further submitted by him that on 10th July, 1983, the detenu had been confined on judicial lockup under orders of the Court and had not been released on bail till this day. In view of these averments, nothing remains to be furthered in this petition which is accordingly dismissed so far as Ranjit Singh SubInspector is concerned.

So far as the added respondents A.S.I. Sukhjinder Singh and Moharrir Head Constable Kulwant Singh are concerned, they have in their affidavits denied altogether any processserver approaching them for getting effected service on Ranjit Singh SubInspector. The report of Head Constable Kulwant Singh dated 8th August, 1983 and the forwarding report of A.S.I. Sukhjinder Singh dated 9th August, 1983 signed under the designation of S.I./S.H.O. police station Saddar, Gurdaspur, were shown to the respective respondents and they admitted having made those reports. These reports are part and parcel of the efforts of the processserver to get effected service on Ranjit Singh SubInspector. For a while, on such confronting, they have stood nonplused but are now apologetic that these reports have escaped their memory and they be pardoned for the purpose. It is plain from such stance that the affidavits they filed were wrong and false. It is a different matter whether they were sworn false deliberately. Without going into that question, these two respondents are warned that they should be careful in future and any process in the nature of habeas corpus issued by this Court has not to be hindered or obstructed by any police official attached to a police station. Rather such process has to be given the lead immediately when it is brought to notice of any particular police officer till it reaches the logical end. With these observations, the rule against the added respondents stands discharged. Disposed of accordingly. No costs.