Judgment · High Court · 2006

The applicant, Sri Paresh Chandra Das, who is a driver under the Directo rate of Technical Education, Assam, and posted at Assam Engineering Institute, G uwahati, was arrested in connection with Basistha Police Station Case No. 119/20 06, under Section 387 IPC, read with Section 10/13 of the Unlawful Activities (P revention) Act. By order, dated 30.06.2006, passed, in Bail Application No. 1385/2006, t he petitioner was directed to be released on bail. As the petitioner had remain ed in custody for more than 48 hours, he was placed under suspension, by order, dated 11.09.2006, passed by the Principal, Assam Engineering Institute. On the basis of an application, filed before the Assam Administrative Tribunal, the ord er, suspending the petitioner, was vacated. The petitioner, in course of time, rejoined his service. The petitioner’s grievance is that, on 09.02.2009, some p olice personnel from Hajo Police Station came to the petitioner’s house, when th e petitioner was not present in his house, and enquired as to how the petitioner had rejoined his service. The petitioner states in this writ petition that tho ugh the family members of the petitioner apprised the police personnel of the fa ct that the order of his suspension had been quashed by the learned Tribunal, th e police have been frequently visiting the house of the petitioner and telling t hem that the petitioner had no right to rejoin his service. The petitioner has, therefore, with the help of this writ application, made under Article 226 of th e Constitution of India, sought for appropriate directions to be issued to the r espondents restraining them from indulging in harassing the petitioner. During pendency of this writ petition, an interim order was passed, in M isc. Case No. 540/2009, directing the respondents not to interfere with the live s and liberty of the petitioner and his family members except in accordance with law. The respondents have, now, filed their affidavit, wherein they have, whil e denying that the petitioner was being harassed, as alleged by the petitioner, averred to the effect, inter alia, thus: Hajo Police Station Case No. 185/2008 has been registered under Section 3 of the Explosive Substances Act, read with S ection 10/13 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act and, in connection ther ewith, one Gautam Sarma of Hajo was arrested. From the recorded statement of th e accused Gautam Sarma, it transpired that the petitioner had been working as a linkman of the banned organization, namely, ULFA. In order to verify the correc tness of the statement, so made by the said accused against the petitioner, and also in order to obtain more clues in connection with the case aforementioned, t he police formed the opinion that the interrogation of the writ petitioner was n ecessary. With this end in view, police from Hajo Police Station had visited th e residence of the petitioner on 09.02.2009, and also on 14.02.2009, but did not find the petitioner in his residence. The members of the petitioner’s family w ere, then, informed by the police that the petitioner was required for the purpo se of interrogation in connection with Hajo Police Station Case No. 185/2008, an d the petitioner’s family members were asked to inform the petitioner to make hi mself available, at Hajo Police Station, for interrogation. This apart, when as ked by the police, the family members of the petitioner expressed their ignoranc e about the whereabouts of the petitioner. However, despite the information give n to the petitioner’s family members, when the petitioner did not make himself a vailable for interrogation, the police visited the petitioner’s residence on 21. 02.2009, at about 1-30 p.m., and, in order to elicit information as regards the whereabouts of the petitioner, the petitioner’s son, Pankaj Das, was brought to Hajo Police Station and interrogated there, but, as Pankaj Das did not reveal an ything, he was allowed to leave the police station at about 5-00 p.m., on the ve ry day, asking him to inform his father (petitioner) that he (petitioner) was re quired by the police in connection with the said case. As the petitioner did no t turn up on the following day, i.e., 22.02.2009, the petitioner’s said son was again brought to the police station, on 22.02.2009, at about 7-00 p.m. and, afte r some interrogation, he was allowed to leave at 9-00 p.m. As the relevant info rmation, as regards the petitioner’s whereabouts had not been forthcoming, the p etitioner’s said son was, once again, brought to the police station, on 23.02.20 09, at about 9-00 a.m. and, on that day, on being interrogated, the petitioner’s said son revealed some information with regard to the petitioner’s whereabouts. The petitioner’s said son was, then, allowed to leave the police station at ab out 10-00 a.m., after, of course, signing a bond undertaking to make himself ava ilable, if required, for interrogation by the police. On the basis of the infor mation elicited from Pankaj Das, the Officer-in-Charge, Hajo Police Station, wen t, on 25.02.2009, in search of the petitioner, to the petitioner’s office at Cha ndmari, Guwahati, but the petitioner was not found available there. The Officer -in-Charge, Hajo Police Station, visited the petitioner’s office at Chandmari, G uwahati, on 28.02.2009, and, on 10.03.2009 too, but did not find the petitioner at his office. The Officer-in-Charge, Hajo Police Station, therefore, left a w ritten notice, with the staff of the Assam Engineering Institute, to the effect that the petitioner was required to report to the Officer-in-Charge, Hajo Police Station, for interrogation in connection with Hajo Police Station Case No. 185/ 2008, but till date the petitioner has not made himself available for interrogat ion. Having heard Mr. A. S. Choudhury, learned Senior counsel, appearing on b ehalf of the petitioner, and Ms. B. Goel, learned Government Advocate, appearing on behalf of the respondents, we find that the respondents have stated the circ umstances, which required the police to visit the petitioner’s house and office. In view of the fact that the petitioner’s name has surfaced in connection with Hajo Police Station Case No. 185/2008 and, as the petitioner has been, accordin g to what the respondents submit, evading the police, we consider it necessary a nd in the interest of justice to direct the petitioner to make himself available , at Hajo Police Station, for interrogation by police in connection with the cas e aforementioned. We, therefore, direct the petitioner to appear, forthwith, at Hajo Police Station and, upon his appearance, the police shall be at liberty to interrogate and deal with the petitioner in accordance with law. If the Invest igating Agency finds it necessary to arrest the petitioner in connection with th e case aforementioned, they may do so in accordance with law, but shall produce the petitioner before the nearest Judicial Magistrate, in accordance with the Co nstitutional and statutory provisions, within a reasonable period of time. If t he petitioner’s further custody, for interrogation or otherwise, is required by the police, the Investigating Agency shall remain free to take such steps as may be permissible in law. With the above observations and directions, this writ petition as well a s the Misc. Case shall stand disposed of. Furnish a copy of this order to the learned Government Advocate.