Judgment:
ORDER
S.S. Nijjar, J.
1. This petition has been flied Under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ of Habeas Corpus for securing the release of husband of the petitioner i.e. Surinder Singh son of Tarlok Singh, who is alleged to be in illegal custody of respondents Nos. 2 to 6 since 7th July, 2000. A prayer was made in the petition for issue of a roving writ and for appointment of a Warrant Officer. The petition had been filed on 11th July, 2000. When the matter came up for a preliminary hearing on 11th July, 2000, notice was issued for 18th July, 2000. but Warrant Officer was not appointed as it was stated at that stage that the whereabouts of the detenu were not known.
2. The petitioner is the wife of the alleged detenu Surinder Singh. At the relevant time, he was working as ASI in the Bhatinda Police. He was also working as a Cashier in the Office of the Senior Superintendent of Police, Bhatinda, respondent No. 2. The allegation in the petition is that for the last 2-3 months, respondent No. 2 was annoyed with the husband of the petitioner. He had told the petitioner that respondent No. 2 is likely to harm his career. At about 6 a.m. on 7th July, 2000, a Police party consisting of Inspector Balwinder Singh, SI Kirpal Singh, ASP P.K. Rai, Jaspreet Singh Sidhu DSP (R) and Jatinder Jain, Senior Superintendent of Police, respondent No. 2 along with a number of gunmen raided the house of the petitioner and bundled the husband of the petitioner in a Jeep and he was taken to an unknown place. The petitioner made every effort to know the whereabouts of her husband but to no avail. On 8th July, 2000, the petitioner sent telegrams to the Chief Justice of Punjab and Haryana High Court, Director General of Police, Punjab and the Chairman, Human Rights Commission. The telegrams were sent at 10.30 a.m. as the husband of the petitioner was not produced in any Court till that time. When the fact of sending the telegram came to the knowledge of respondent No. 2, he directed that the petitioner be also taken into cutody on 8th July, 2000. Consequently, the petitioner was also taken into custody on 8th July, 2000 at about 6.30 p.m. She was kept in illegal custody for the whole night intervening 8th and 9th July, 2000. On 8th July, 2000, some Police Officers came to the residence of the petitioner and forcibly took away the keys of the cash and number of documents/registers which were in the custody of the husband of the petitioner being the Cashier in the office of the Senior Superintendent of Police, Bhatinda. No receipt was executed for taking away the documents and the keys of the cash. When the petitioner approached respondent No. 2 for release of the husband of the petitioner, she was threatened by respondent No. 2 and told that her husband will be implicated in a serious false case. She apprehends that the life of her husband is in danger and thus the present Habeas Corpus petition was filed for the release of her husband.
3. In support of her case, the petitioner had also filed an affidavit of one Sukhdev Singh S/o Karnail Singh dated 23rd July, 2000. In this affidavit, serious allegations were made against SSP Jatinder Jain, respondent No. 2. At the time of filing the affidavit, Sukhdev Singh, ASI was posted in Chief Minister's Security, Punjab. In this affidavit, it is stated that the husband of the petitioner was seen by him in the Police Station Kotwali, Bhatinda on 8th July, 2000. It is also stated that Surinder Singh ASI and Shashi Atwal had been beaten up badly in the police Station Under the direct supervision of Jatinder Jain, Senior Superintendent of Police, Bhatinda. Surinder Singh is further alleged to have told Sukhdev Singh that an amount of Rs. 3 lacs was spent by Jatinder Jain SSP on welfare Fund on different items i.e. purchase of Cellular phones, payment of petrol bills and payment of Rs. 1 lac to the Reader of Shinder Pal Singh Brar for effecting a compromise in a case. Surinder Singh had made the payment on the orders of respondent No. 2 and now when Surinder Singh requested Jatinder Jain to return the amount of Rs. 3 lacs, he became annoyed. Due to this reason, Surinder Singh had been tortured and detained in the Police Station on 8th July, 2000. Surinder Singh is stated to have expressed his apprehensions that he will be implicated in false case and killed in a fake encounter. Surinder Singh is also stated to have given a handwritten letter to be delivered to the petitioner. The deponent is stated to have searched for the wife of Surinder Singh (the petitioner) and could not find her for 3 to 4 days. He delivered the letter to her on 12th July, 2000. It is at that time that the deponent is stated to have narrated the whole story to the wife. The Habeas Corpus petition is filed on 11th July, 2000. The deponent also expressed in apprehension that on filing the present affidavit, his career will also be spoiled by respondent No. 2. A similar affidavit has been filed by one Mithan Singh, Head Constable, Police Lines, Bhatinda. He has stated that he had gone to Police Lines, Bhatinda, on 15th July, 2000 for some personal work. He saw Surinder Singh and Shashi Atwal, ASI. There again Surinder Singh is stated to have repeated the same story which he had earlier told to Sukhdev Singh. This affidavit is filed on 8th August, 2000. Since the allegations made in the affidavit of Sukhdev Singh were serious, respondent No. 2 was directed to file an affidavit in detail. Consequently, respondent No. 2 has filed his affidavit on 20th August, 2000.
4. Relying on the affidavits filed by Sukhdev Singh and Mithan Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that it is a fit case where the inquiry should be entrusted to an independent agency like the CBI. He has placed reliance on a judgment of the Supreme Court in the Punjab and Haryana High Court Bar Association v. The State of Punjab, (1996) 3 Rec Cri R 773. In that case, the Supreme Court had directed that the Police officials who were involved in the incident should be suspended during the pendency of the trial. Learned counsel submitted that similar are the circumstances in this case and, therefore, these officers should also be suspended during the pendency of the inquiry by the CBI.
5. Mr. Battas, learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 2, has submitted that the present Habeas Corpus petition has been filed for ulterior motives. By 8th July, 2000, the wife was well aware that a FIR had been registered against her husband Under Sections 15 /61/85, NDPS Act. She was also well aware that being a policeman, it would perhaps not be possible to secure the release of her husband on bail. The learned counsel has further submitted that a perusal of the petition as it is originally filed would show that only bald assertions have been made against respondent No. 2. The whole story about the misappropriation or misutilisation of Rs. 3 lacs has come for the first time in the affidavit filed by Sukhdev Singh on 23rd July, 2000. Mr. Battas has brought to the attention of this Court the pioneering work of crime detection which is said to have been done by respondent No. 2.
6. I have perused the entire file. I have also heard the learned counsel at considerable length. In these proceedings, it would not be appropriate to make any comments about the work which may have been done by respondent No. 2. A perusal of the documents which have been attached to the affidavit show that the husband of the peti- tioner has been dismissed from service by invoking the provisions of Article 311(2)(b) of the Constitution of India. Annexure R-2/B does give an indication of the action being taken by respondent No. 2 for curbing the nexus between policemen and criminals in the drug related offences. Relevant part of the Action Plan is reproduced as under :-
In the campaign against drug dealers during the last fortnight the distinct police has registered 11 cases and arrested 12 persons under the NDPS Act and a recovery of 400 Kgs. (approx) poppy husk was made. Raids were also conducted on 20 chemists shops in Bathinda and Rampura. Action is being taken by the Drug Inspector against many of the owners of the shops for possessing unauthorised intoxicating drugs. A case Under Sections 7 read with 13(2) of P.C. Act and Section 384, IPC has also been registered against SI Barjinder Kumar for taking illegal gratification and not registering a case against a drug dealer.
7. In view of the above, the explanation given by the S.S.P. cannot be brushed aside. A perusal of the statement (Annexure R-2/J) of Gurtej Singh son of Kaur Singh recorded Under Section 164, Cr. P.C. before the Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Bathinda, on 10th July, 2000 shows that his house was raided on 8th July, 2000 at 9-9.15 a.m. It also shows that Surinder Singh and Shashi Atwal escaped from the house at that time. In this statement, it is stated that Surinder Singh had taken on rent a portion of the house of Gurtej Singh. It was from this house that Surinder Singh and Shashi Atwal were carrying on the activity of dealing in narcotic drugs. From this place, the Police party also recovered two bags of poppy husk both weighing 30 kgs. each. In this statement, Gurtej Singh makes a mention of a Maruti car in which Surinder Singh and Shashi Atwal made good their escape. This very car has been impounded by the Haryana Police at Narwana. At the time when the car was impounded, it contained two fictitious number plates of Delhi. The two occupants gave their residence as Gidderbaha and Kalianwala. The word 'Press' was writen on the wind-screen. They were arrested on suspicion of theft. This was on 11-7-2000. Rupinder Singh, one of the occupants stated that the car had been given by Surinder Singh, ASI, his friend, on 9-7-2000. He also told Rupinder Singh that a case has been registered against him and he is defending the same. He further stated as follows :-
My vehicle may be taken out of Punjab State protecting the same from Police and within the Punjab State fake No. plate DL-4C-A/7689 may be used. My mobile phone No. is 98140445962 and you may remain in contact with me and bring the vehicle back whenever I ask for the same. I after asking the vehicle from Surinder Singh from Gidderbaha and taken Soni alias Bacchi from Dabwali was going for Ambala. The above said report is sent for your information and necessary action.
8. Thus, it becomes evident that in the statement made to the Police, the two persons who were in possession of the car had clearly implicated the husband of the petitioner. Even the wife who is present in Court has stated that the car belonged to her.
9. Keeping the aforesaid facts and the material placed on record in view, I am of the considered opinion that the petitioner has failed to make out a prima facie case that respondent No. 2 is carrying out any vendetta against the husband of the petitioner. Respondent No. 2 will not gain any advantage by keeping the alleged detenu in custody, as a case is already registered against him. On the allegations made in the counter-affidavits the police would have made an application for police remand. It deserves notice that this petition has been filed on 11-7-2000. Sukhdev Singh in his affidavit has stated that he had told the petitioner about the presence of the alleged detenu in the Police Station on 12-7-2000. Thus, prima facie the stray put forward by Sukhdev Singh seems to be an afterthought. The respondents had allegedly taken the alleged detenu into illegal custody at 6.00 a.m. on 7-7-2000. No telegram was given by the wife till 8-7-2000 at 10.30 a.m. In the petition it is stated that the husband was 'bundled' into a gypsy. Yet she seems to have remained calm for 24 hours. I find much substance in the submissions of Mr. Battas, learned counsel for respondent No. 6, that the petition has been filed only to create a defence to the case registered against the alleged detenu Under Sections 15/61 and 85 of the NDPS Act. The observations made by the Supreme Court in the Punjab and Haryana High Court Bar Association's case (1996 (3) Rec Cri R 773) (supra) would not be applicable to the facts of this case. There an advocate, his wife and his son had been kidnapped by the police. They were alleged to have been eliminated by the police. One Harpreet alias Lucky had been falsely implicated by the police, as being the kidnapper. The High Court refused to order a CBI enquiry. In these circumstances, Supreme Court made the following observations :
Kuldeep Singh, J. This Court by the order dated December 7, 1993 directed the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) to investigate into mysterious and most tragic abduction and alleged murder of Kulwant Singh, Advocate, his wife and their two years old child. This Court noticed the inaction on the part of the High Court in the following words :
The High Court was wholly unjustified in closing its eyes and ears to the controversy which had shocked the lawyer fraternity in the region. For the reasons best known to it, the High Court became wholly oblivious to the patent facts on the record and failed to perform the duty entrusted to it Under the constitution. After giving our thoughtful consideration to the facts and circusmtances of the case, we are of the view that the least the High Court could have done in this case was to have directed an independent investigation enquiry into the mysterious and most tragic abduction and alleged murder of Kulwant Singh Advocate and his family.' Such are not the circumstances in the present case. Here we have a number of policemen who prima facie seem to have organised a gang for drug trafficking in league with the organised drug dealers. The police is prefectly within bounds to investigate the crimes, committed by the guardians of law.
10. From the facts as narrated above, it transpires that respondent No. 2 had made efforts to break the nexus between the criminals and the Police in drug trafficking. In this view of the matter, no directions are required to be given to the respondents in this petition.
Consequently, the petition is dismissed.