Punjab-Haryana High Court
Anand Kumar vs State Of Punjab And Others on 24 January, 2024
Author: Sandeep Moudgil
Bench: Sandeep Moudgil
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:010274
2024:PHHC:010274
124
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CRWP-514-2024
DECIDED ON: 24.01.2024
ANAND KUMAR ...PETITIONER
VERSUS
THE STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS. ...RESPONDENTS
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MOUDGIL
Present: Mr. C.S. Singh, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. R.K.Kartikeya, Advocate and
Mr. Sunny Deep Joneja, Advocate
for respondent No.4.
****
SANDEEP MOUDGIL, J (ORAL)
In view of the report submitted by the Warrant Officer vide order dated 18.01.2024, which is read as under:-
"In compliance of the orders dated 16.01.2024 passed by the Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court, I alongwith the petitioner of the alleged detenues reached Police Posts Mubarakpur District Mohali at 08.15 P.M. on 16.01.2024, Duty Officer H.CSultan Singh, ASI Surinder Singh, and S.I. Kulwant Singh and other Police Officials were present in the said Police post. I disclosed my identity and purpose of visit and requested to them to provide the protection for conducting the raid. Entry in this regard was made in the G.D. Register. The attested copy of the G.D. No.18 dated 16.01.2024 is enclosed herewith as Annexure "A". In the company of the Police Party with a lady police official Mrs. Noorjhan (Sr. Constable), I alongwith the petitioner reached the premises of Respondent Nos 4 and 5 i.e. (owner of Brick Kiln) Batha Marka AKM, Village Mubarakpur, P.S. Mubarakpur, District SAS Nagar, Punjab at 9.05 P.M. When we entered the residence of the detenue/laborers many people were standing there, I enquired thern about Sumit, one person recognized himself as Sumit Respondent No. 6 and told that he is working as munshi of the said batha owner. I directed the petitioner to call all the detenues to come out of their 1 of 2 ::: Downloaded on - 26-01-2024 03:09:51 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:010274 2024:PHHC:010274 CRWP-514-2024 -2- jhuggis/houses. All detenue mentioned in para 4 of the writ petition came out and I marked their attendance. But only 24 detenue were present out of 26 detenue as mentioned at para 4 of the writ petition. enquired detenues about the missing two detenues, they told me that the had already gone from the present batha. In between Sumit i.e. responden No. 6 made call to his owner and he also talked with me and he has state that the detenues have taken advance money from him and he has no detained them illegally. After that petitioners arranged a Canter with No UP 11 CT 4308 anc household material and other belongings of detenues were loaded and detenues also boarded the Canter. After that we reached the police station at around 10 PM and petitioner along with other detenues gave their statement regarding release from the illegal detention of respondent No. 4 to 6. The said statement is enclosed herewith as Annexure "B". Afterwards the all 24 detenues along with petitioner left for their native place i.e. Saharanpur UP in the said canter No UP 11 CT 4308. G.D. No. 19 dated 16.01.2024 has been registered by the Police Official of the said Police Station regarding searching procedure of the detenues and statement. The copy of the same is annexed herewith as Annexure "A". Therefore, it is reported that detenues 24 in number, as mentioned in para No.4 of the Petition have been released from the illegal detention of Respondent 4 to 6."
Learned counsel for the petitioner prays for withdrawal of the present petition having been rendered infructuous.
Prayer is accepted.
Ordered accordingly since alleged detenues stand released as evident from the said report of Warrant Officer.
(SANDEEP MOUDGIL)
24.01.2024 JUDGE
renubala
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether reportable Yes/No
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:010274
2 of 2
::: Downloaded on - 26-01-2024 03:09:52 :::