Delhi High Court - Orders
Crl.M.A. ........./2022 (For ... vs Union Of India & Ors on 30 September, 2022
Author: Mukta Gupta
Bench: Mukta Gupta, Amit Sharma
$~(Spl.DB 1)
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(CRL.) ......../2022 (to be numbered)
CRL.M.A. ........./2022 (for exemption) (to be numbered)
VINEET SEHGAL ..... Petitioner
Represented by: Ms.Monika Dhankar, Advocate
(through video conferencing).
versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. ..... Respondents
Represented by: None.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MUKTA GUPTA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT SHARMA
ORDER
% 30.09.2022 CRL.M.A. ........./2022 (for exemption) (to be numbered) Exemption allowed subject to just exception.
W.P.(CRL.) ......../2022 (to be numbered)
1. This petition of habeas corpus is listed today at 10.30 p.m. on a mentioning made by the learned counsel for the petitioner.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that advance copy of this petition has been served through the official email addresses of the respondents with intimation that the matter is being listed before Court on mentioning and the video link of the proceedings has also been forwarded Signature Not Verified Signed By:JUSTICE MUKTA GUPTA W.P.(Crl.)...../2022 (to be numbered) Page 1 of 5 Signing Date:01.10.2022 13:20:57 on the said emails. However, none appears on behalf of the respondents.
3. As per learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner was put under illegal suspension and put to harassment by his senior officers. It is stated that no leave was granted to the petitioner to meet his father when he was on death bed and the father of the petitioner passed away on 17th October 2021 without fulfilling his last wish to meet his son i.e. the petitioner. After the news of the death of the father, the petitioner applied for leave but the same was not granted. Ultimately, 40 days leave was sanctioned to the petitioner when the respondent No. 3 was on leave and thus, the petitioner was permitted to leave Headquarter vide letter dated 27th May 2022, whereafter, he travelled to his hometown at Rohtak, Haryana on 27th May 2022. It is claimed that the petitioner developed dry cough with high fever on 3 rd June 2022 which did not improve resulting him going for treatment to Government District Civil Hospital, Rohtak on 4th June 2022. Despite the treatment, there was no improvement and the petitioner was advised four days rest, however, his condition did not improve. Thus, the petitioner was referred to PGIMS Rohtak for specialized treatment, whereagain, he was prescribed seven days rest. It is claimed that when he went to PGIMS Rohtak on 20th June 2022, he was advised rest for four days and on 23rd June 2022, he was again prescribed three days rest. In the meantime, the petitioner tested Covid positive and was advised seven days home isolation on 25th June 2022. It is claimed that thereafter also, the petitioner was advised repeated rests. The petitioner tried to reach on the personal and official mobile phone numbers of the respondent No. 3, however, to no avail. Despite having got confirmed air tickets for his return journey to Silchar, the petitioner could not go there in view of his medical condition. It Signature Not Verified Signed By:JUSTICE MUKTA GUPTA W.P.(Crl.)...../2022 (to be numbered) Page 2 of 5 Signing Date:01.10.2022 13:20:57 is claimed by the petitioner that harbouring malice, respondent No. 3 issued a letter dated 8th June 2022 directing the petitioner to report back to Headquarter on 9th June 2022 despite the fact that the petitioner had already intimated on 8th June 2022 regarding his medical condition. The petitioner also claims to have received a letter dated 20th June 2022 which according to him, was with the intention to defame and humiliate him and that by various other communications, the petitioner was harassed and defamed.
4. The grievance of the petitioner in the present petition is to the letter dated 28th September 2022 issued by the respondent No.3 and annexed as Annexure P-4 to the present petition, wherein, it is noted that the petitioner was allowed to leave his declared Headquarter during suspension for 12 days w.e.f. 27th May 2022 to 8th June 2022 (A/N) on sympathetic grounds, however, he failed to report back after expiry of the permissible period granted to him to leave the Headquarter (SHQ BSF Silchar) and despite repeated directions, he has deliberately violated the legitimate orders; undermined discipline; absented himself to escape from the ongoing disciplinary proceedings against him with a view to avoid trial; and that he was detained by the Commandant 25 Bn BSF on 27th September 2022 and kept in Officers' Mess of BSF Campus, Chhawla, New Delhi and he was thus directed to be taken under arrest with immediate effect till further orders.
5. Contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that non- appearance in disciplinary proceedings does not entail invoking of Rule 36(1)(iii)(a), (b) and (d) of the BSF Rules, 1969 and hence, the petitioner is under illegal detention.
Signature Not Verified Signed By:JUSTICE MUKTA GUPTA W.P.(Crl.)...../2022 (to be numbered) Page 3 of 5 Signing Date:01.10.2022 13:20:576. Rule 36 of the BSF Rules 1969 reads as under:-
"36. Arrest when to be imposed.--
(1) Any person charged with,--
(i) an offence under section 14, or clause (a) clause (b) of section 16, or section 17 or section 20 or sub-section (1) of section 21.
(ii) a civil offence punishable with death or imprisonment for life.
(iii) any other offence under the Act--
(a) if the interest of discipline so require; or
(b) if the person concerned deliberately undermines discipline; or
(c) if the person concerned is of violent disposition; or
(d) if the person concerned is likely to absent himself with a view to avoid trial; or
(e) if the person concerned is likely to interfere with witnesses or tamper with evidence, shall be placed under arrest.
(2) Where any person arrested shows symptoms of sickness, medical assistance shall be provided for such person".
7. A perusal of the reply by the petitioner to the letter issued on 28th September 2022, reveals that allegation of commission of offences punishable under Sections 25, 28, 34, 35 and 39 of the BSF Act, 1968 have been responded by the petitioner.
8. As noted above in 36 (1) of BSF Rules, in case the person concerned is likely to absent himself with a view to avoid trial or undermine the discipline, he can be put under arrest. Further, the representation of the petitioner dated 29th September 2022 seeking revocation of the arrest order itself shows that the authority was competent to issue an arrest order.
9. Issue notice to the respondents on the petitioner taking steps through Email, SMS, Whatsapp and Speed Post, returnable before the Court on 7 th Signature Not Verified Signed By:JUSTICE MUKTA GUPTA W.P.(Crl.)...../2022 (to be numbered) Page 4 of 5 Signing Date:01.10.2022 13:20:57 October 2022.
10. Considering the facts noted above, at this stage, this Court finds no ground to stay the transfer of the petitioner to SHQ BSF Silchar or stay the impugned arrest order dated 28th September 2022.
11. Order be uploaded on the website of this Court.
MUKTA GUPTA, J.
AMIT SHARMA, J.
SEPTEMBER 30, 2022/akb Signature Not Verified Signed By:JUSTICE MUKTA GUPTA W.P.(Crl.)...../2022 (to be numbered) Page 5 of 5 Signing Date:01.10.2022 13:20:57