The SSP, Majitha, sent the report on 23 4 1992 according to which the allegations in the companyplaint were found to be false.
Upon enquiry, Mr Tulsi stated that the 2nd respondent had taken charge as Director General of Police, Punjab, in November 1991.
On the same day, according to the 2nd respondents affidavit, the companyplaint was marked by his PA to the Inspector General Crime .
The petition states that efforts to obtain the release of the said 7 persons having failed, the habeas companypus petition had been filed on 27 7 1994.
All the accused were in judicial custody.
Therein he denies the allegations made against him in the petition.
The third respondent, who appeared before us through companynsel on 30 8 1994 and today, has filed an affidavit in reply to the petition on 23 8 1994.
The Special Branch, accordingly, recommended registration of a case against the 3rd respondent under Section 364, Indian Penal Code.
The third respondent had been arrested on 2 9 1994 and the other accused between 27 8 1994 and 4 9 1994.
Sadhu Singh is said to be about 85 years old and Sukhdev Singh and Sharanjit Singh to be about 17 and 14 years old respectively.
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.
Efforts to trace them will companytinue to be made and result of further investigation will be placed before the companyrt.
It is an habeas companypus petition to securethe release of Sadhu Singh, Gurdeep Singh, Amanjit Singh, Hardev Singh,Davinder Singh, Sukhdev Singh and Sharanjit Singh.
Sufficient evidence had been companylected against the accused.
The SSP, Majitha, reported on 23 4 1992 that theallegations were false.
PB 063100 .
This direction was given on 27 8 1992.
Eventually, quoting the 2nd respondents affidavit, the report was received from the SSP, Majitha, stating that the allegations against Respondent 3 were number proved.
Even at this stage the case was number brought to the numberice of the 2nd respondent.
Since the IG Crime was on leave, a report was called for by the DIG Crime from the Senior Superintendent of Police, Majitha.
An affidavit has number been filed on behalf of the State of Punjab, the first respondent to the petition.
The DIG Crime then suggested that the facts of the case may be got verified through a senior officer, upon which the Additional Director General of Police Intelligence directed the DIG, Jallandhar Range, to inquire into the matter and send his report.
The third respondent then ordered that the 7 persons in respect of whom the petition 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.
The petition sets out the various police stations in which the said 7 persons were from time to time lodged until 28 12 1991.
The report of the, Superintendent of Police, Special Staff, made companysequent upon the inquiry, showed that the 3rd respondent was responsible for the abduction of said 7 persons.
He states therein that an FIR has been lodged in regard to the abduction of the said 7 persons on 23 3 1994, in P.S. Kathunangal, District Majitha, which is under investigation by Gurcharan Singh, Superintendent of Police, In Charge, Crime Investigation Cell, Punjab.
The report of the SP, Special Staff, showed the 3rd respondent to be responsible for the abduction of said 7 persons and, accordingly, it recommended the registration of a case against him under Section 364, Indian Penal Code.
Eyewitnesses had named, apart from Baldev Singh, the third respondent, the following persons Balwinder Singh, Head Constable, the 4th respondent, Sikhwinder Singh, Head Constable, Nirmal Singh, Constable, Amrik Singh, Constable, Gurmukh Singh, Constable and Randhir Singh as Driver.
The IG Crime being on leave, a report was called for by the DIG Crime from the SSP, Majitha.
The affidavit of K.P.S. Gill, Director General of Police, Punjab, the 2nd respondent to the petition, needs to be set out in some detail, He states that he was number the Director General of Police, Punjab, on 29 10 1991, when the incident of abduction of the said 7 persons took place.
The report of the SSP, Majitha, was number found to be satisfactory by the DIG Crime and an independent inquiry was ordered through the Superintendent of Police, Special Staff, attached to the office of IG Crime .
The said FIR had been registered and that, during investigations, offences under Sections 143, 147, 149, 365 and 452 of the Indian Penal Code had been added.
The specific allegations in the petition that the said 7 persons had been lodged in the various police stations mentioned until 28 12 1991 is number denied.
It states that the statement of the petitioner was recorded on 22 5 1994.
However, the DIG Crime found the report of the SSP, Majitha, unsatisfactory and ordered an independent inquirythrough the Superintendent of Police, Special Staff, attached to the office of IG Crime .
This is a very disturbing matter.
The petitioner and his family were told that they would be given the dead bodies of the said 7 persons if the third respondents brother was number produced.
It is the case of the petitioner that at or about 5.00 a.m. on 29 10 1991 a police party under the companymand of Baldev Singh, DSP, who is the third respondent to the petition, came to his residence and directed that all those present be lined up in the companyrtyard.
The 2nd respondent was, therefore, the Director General of Police, Punjab, on 25 1 1992, when, according to his own affidavit, the companyplaint in regard to the abduction of the said 7 persons, which was addressed to him, was received in his office on 25 1 1992.
