Kulwinder Singh v. State of Punjab & Ors.
Case at a glance
- Decided
- 08 Sep 2011
- Bench
- T P S MANN
Provisions considered
- Indian Penal Code, 1860 ss. 406, 420
Judgment
CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE T.P.S. MANN Present : Mr. R.S. Rana, Advocate Mr. P.S. Paul, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab for respondents No. 1 to 4. Mr. Manish Kumar Singla, Advocate for respondent No.5 to 7. T.P.S. Mann, J. (Oral) According to the petitioner, his father Shiv Ram was abducted by respondents No.5 to 7 on 29.4.2011 whereafter his car was recovered by the police from a canal in a damaged condition. The petitioner along with his family members and relatives had approached the police authorities many a time to find out Shiv Ram but all in vain. On 1.9.2011, respondent No.4, who is Station House Officer, Police Station Sadar, Dhuri came along with private respondents No.5 to 7 and picked up Baldev Singh and Gurmukh Singh, brothers of the petitioner. When the petitioner approached the Station House Officer for their release, the SHO demanded an amount of Rs.15,00,000/-. He also Criminal Writ Petition No.1705 of 2011 -2- disclosed that the petitioner's father-Shiv Ram was in his custody since 29.4.2011. According to the petitioner, neither any case has been registered against the alleged detenus nor they have been produced before the Ilaqa Magistrate. While issuing notice of motion to respondents No.4 to 7 for today, the Court had directed the Registry to appoint a Warrant Officer. Pursuant to the same, the Warrant Officer, along with the petitioner, reached Police Station Sadar, Dhuri on
2.9.2011 at 8.25 P.M. At that time, both Baldev Singh and Gurmukh Singh, were found sitting in the lock-up. However, Shiv Ram was not found there. The Warrant Officer was apprised by respondent No.4, who came there soon afterwards that Baldev Singh and Gurmukh Singh had been arrested on that day in case FIR No.200 dated 31.8.2011 registered at Police Station Sadar, Dhuri under Sections 420/406 IPC from T-Point, Jati Majra and had just been brought to the Police Station. The SHO handed over copies of FIR/zimni reports/arrest memo/search memo to the Warrant Officer. Afterwards, the Warrant Officer, along with the petitioner, went to the house of Kulwinder Singh-respondent No.5 so as to find out as to whether Shiv Ram was kept there. However, even at that place, Shiv Ram was not found present. The petitioner, thereafter, stated that he did not want the Warrant Officer to visit any other premises in order to search for his father Criminal Writ Petition No.1705 of 2011 -3- and in that regard gave a statement in writing, which has been appended by the Warrant Officer with his report as Annexure-E. The Warrant Officer finally reported that as both, Baldev Singh and Gurmukh Singh were found arrested in the aforementioned FIR, it could not be said that they were in illegal custody. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that Shiv Ram is being kept in illegal detention by the SHO, Police Station Sadar, Dhuri ever since 29.4.2011 after he had been abducted by respondents No.5 to 7 from his house. Later on, his Maruti car was recovered by the police from a canal in a damaged condition. The SHO, Police Station Dhuri is present in the Court. He states that at no point of time did he confine Shiv Ram, father of the petitioner. In view of the fact that Baldev Singh and Gurmukh Singh were found to be in legal custody and Shiv Ram was not found present either in Police Station Sadar, Dhuri or at the house of Kulwinder Singh-respondent No.5, the present petition has been rendered infructuous and is, accordingly, disposed of. However, the petitioner would be at liberty to avail of any other remedy available to him under the law. September 08, 2011 satish ( T.P.S. MANN ) JUDGE
Questions this judgment answers
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Indian Penal Code, 1860 — ss. 406, 420.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Punjab & Haryana High Court, on 08 Sep 2011. The bench was T P S MANN.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.