✦ Punjab & Haryana High Court · 23 Sep 2011

Gur Piar Singh v. State of Punjab & Ors.

CRL. W. P No. 1729 of 2011L N MITTAL

Case at a glance

Provisions considered

Judgment

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L. N. MITTAL * * * Present : Mr. Navdeep Chhabra, Advocate for the petitioner. * * * L. N. MITTAL, J. (Oral) : Gur Piar Singh – petitioner has filed this Habeas Corpus writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India alleging that petitioner's brother Gur Iqbal Singh, latter's wife Pooja Rani, daughter Khushi, Ranjit Singh and Nirmal Singh have been illegally detained by respondent no.3 – SHO, Police Station City Patran. Vide order dated 05.09.2011, Warrant Officer was appointed to search the premises of Police Station City Patran or any other place that may be pointed out by the petitioner, in order to secure presence/release of the alleged detenues. Accordingly, Warrant Officer, along with the petitioner Crl. W. P. No. 1729 of 2011 2 and his associates, searched the premises of Police Post City Patran, as well as main Police Station City Patran, but the alleged detenues were not found there, as per report submitted by the Warrant Officer. However, Hemant Kumar – SHO of Police Station Patran City told that FIR No.234 dated

05.09.2011 under Sections 382 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code had been registered at 09:30 A.M. (on 05.09.2011) against detenue Gur Iqbal Singh @ Soni (petitioner's brother) and one Nirmal Singh son of Karnail Singh (not alleged detenue Nirmal Singh son of Mithu Singh). I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the case file. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the alleged detenues are still in police custody. However, counsel for the petitioner does not want appointment of another Warrant Officer to secure the presence/release of the alleged detenues. In view of the aforesaid, no further action or order is required in the instant criminal writ petition, which is accordingly disposed of. September 23, 2011 monika ( L. N. MITTAL ) JUDGE

Questions this judgment answers

Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?

Constitution of India — art. 226; Indian Penal Code, 1860 — ss. 382, 506.

Which court decided this case, and when?

Punjab & Haryana High Court, on 23 Sep 2011. The bench was L N MITTAL.

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.

Why is this linked?

This is the original judgment text, reproduced from the public court record. Always verify it against the official record before relying on it in a filing — check it on Punjab & Haryana High Court or eCourts case status (search case no. CRL. W. P No. 1729 of 2011). ← Search more judgments