LexINDER SINGH versus STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
- INDER SINGH v. STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS. SEPTEMBER 15, 1994 [M.N. VENKATACHALIAH CJ, DR. AS. ANAND AND S.P. BHARUCHA, JJ.) Constitution of India, Articles 21and3~abeas Corpus-Senior Pun- A B jab Police Officer abducting seven persons-Case against officer registered after long lapse of time-Abducted persons remaining untraced--lnvestigation C by Central Bureau of Investigation into abduction order. Constitution of India, Article 3~abeas Corpus Petition-Abduction of seven persons by senior police officer-Persons remaining untraced--Char- gesheet against officer filed-Whether petition became infructuous--Held, no; D on receipt of report court can also order compensation to next of kin of abducted persons. In reply to a Habeas Corpus petition filed by the petitioner in July, 1994 the State of Punjab admitted that the third· respondent, a senior officer of the Punjab Poli~ and six other policemen had abducted the · E father, brother, son and four nephews of the petitioner in October, 1991 using offical machinery. In a separate affidavit the Director General of Police, Punjab stated that despite best efforts the seven persons could not yet be located. He admitted that although the petitioner's complaint had been received in F January, 1992, a FIR had been lodged only in March, 1994 and thereafter chargesheet was filed to prosecute the third respondent and other policemen who were in judicial custody. It was asserted that trial would commence soon and the guilty punished, and that the writ petition had accordingly become infructuous. G Negativing the contention, this Court HELD : 1.1. An independent investigation at a very high level is called for. The inquiry shall be conducted personally by the Director of the Central Bureau of Investigation and he shall make a report to the Court H· 573 574 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1994] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. A within four weeks. Considering the leisurely manner in which the Punjab Police has acted upon the complaint, it is not unreasonable to conclude that the investigations by the Punjab Police will lead nowhere. [581-C, 581-F, 580-C] 1.2. The investigation shall cover the cir~umstances of the abduction, B the present whereabouts and whether there has been an attempt to cover· up the misdoings of police officers. [581-C, E] 1.3. The safety of the citizenry at the hands of such an errant, high- handed and unchecked police force is a cause for deep concern. [580-D] . C 2. The contention that the Writ Petition had become infructuous is outrageous. The Court will be free to make such orders after the receipt of the CBI report including orders for payment of compensation to the next of the kin of the seven persons. [580-F, 582-A, B] CRIMINAL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Writ Petition (Crl.) No. D 221 of 1994. E (Under Article 32 of the Constitution of In~a.) K.T.S. Tulsi, Additional Solicitor General and R.S. Suri for the Petitioner. R.S. Sodhi and Mukul Mudgal for the Respondents. The following Order of the Court was delivered : This is a very disturbing matter. It is an habeas corbus petition to F secure the release of Sadhu Singh, Gurdeep Singh, Amanjit Singh, Haraev Singh, Davinder Singh, Sukhdev Singh and Sharanjit Singh. It is filed by Inder Singh, who is the son of Sadhu Singh, the brother of Gurdeep Singh, the father of Hardev Singh and the uncle of Amanjit Singh, Davinder Singh, Sukhdev Singh and Sharanjit Singh, Sadhu Singh is said to about 85 years G old and Sukhdev Singh and Sharanjit Singh to be about 17 and 14 years old respectively. It is the case of the petitioner that at or about 5.00 a.m. on 29th October, 1991, a police party under the command of Baldev Singh, D.S.P., who is the thii:d respondent to the petition, came to his residence and H . directed that all those present be lined up in its courtyard. The third ... INDER SINGH v .. STAIB 575 respondent then ordered that the 7 persons in respect of whom the petition A is filed be taken into custody. The police party accompanying the third respondent, accordingly, took the said 7 persons into custody and placed them in a police van (No. PB-06-3100). The petitioner and his family were told that they would be given the dead bodies of the said 7 persons if the third respondent's brother was not produced. The petition sets out the B various police stations in which the said 7 persons were from time to time lodged until 28th December, 1991. The petition states tha
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.