Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

1. We have heard Sri D.S. Srivastava, counsel for the petitioner and Sri Arvind Tripathi, A.G.A. for respondents No. 1, 2 and 3. Sri G.S. Hajela counsel for C.B.I. has also been heard.

2. The petitioner Man Singh has filed this habeas corpus petition through his father Ram Lakhan. The prayer made is for a direction to the respondents to produce the petitioner Man Singh before this Court and to set him free from their illegal custody. Respondenf No. 3 is Station House Officer, Police Station Karvi District Chitrakoot who has been impleaded by name also as respondent No. 4. The respondent No. 5 is Constable Rajendra Shukla posted at Police Station Karvi aforesaid and respondent No. 6 is one Chandra Prakash Dwivedi son of Babu Lal Dwivedi. Respondent No. l is State of U.P. whereas respondent No. 2 is Superintendent of Police of District Chitrakcot.

4. Respondent No. 4 Sharad Pratap Singh, S.H.O., P.S. Karvi averred in paragraph 4 of his counter affidavit that in fact, a case crime No. 38 of 2005 was registered under Section 216A I.P.C. along with Section 14 of Dacoity Affected Ara Act, at Police Station Kotwali, Karvi, District Chitrakoot in which during investigation on 5.2.2005 accused Narottam Garg, S/o Shyam Lal informed that Mehdi Hasan and Man Singh Kurmi (petitioner) supplied rifle for Rs. 2.5,000/- to Nattboo Chamar--a history sheeter, who was a hardened criminal. During the course of investigation of the aforesaid matter, the petitioner Man Singh was called for interrogation on 6.2.2005 and 8.2.2005, but he did not turn up at Police Station Kotwali Karvi. District Chitrakoot. Regarding interrogation dated 5.2.2005 of accused Narottam Garg, an entry had already been made in G.D. at 9.30 P.M. P.S. Kotwali, Karvi. The petitioner Man Singh did not come to P.S. Kotwali, Karvi, for interrogation till 12.2.2005. On 13.2.2005, the respondent No. 4 along with other police personnel was hunting to get information regarding accused of case crime No. 318 of 2004, under Sections 396 and 120B I.P.C. and while returning, he found Bolero Jeep No. U.P. 96-6720 parked near R.T.O. check post unclaimed. Even after inquiry, no person was found claiming the ownership of the aforesaid vehicle. Hence the same was brought to Police Station Kotwali, Karvi, regarding which G.D. entry was-made at 1.10 P.M. on 13.2.2005. Thereafter it was revealed that the said vehicle belonged to the petitioner Man Singh son of Ram Lakhan. The allegations contrary to it were totally incorrect, malicious and misconceived. He swore that the petitioner or his father had never been asked to hand over the Bolero Jeep in question to him (respondent No. 4).

(i) During investigation of case crime No. 38 of 2005, Under Section 216A I.P.C. and Section 14 of U.P. Dacoity Affected Area Act, Police Station Kotwali, Karvi,. one of the arrested accused, namely, Menhdi Hasan disclosed that he alongwith the petitioner Man Singh had sold a rifle to one Nathu, a member of dreaded dacoit gang. Mehadi Hasan accused reiterated this fact before the CBI also.
(ii) After knowing the facum of arrest of the Mehandi Hasan by the Karvi Police on 6.2.2005, the petitioner Man Singh went underground to escape his arrest and interrogation.
(ix) On 29.11.2005, the efforts of CBI to hand over the petitioner to his family members at the office of Tehsildar, Karvi remained unsucessful due to non-cooperative attitude of his family. However, on 30.11.2005 in the presence of Tehsildar Karvi, media persons and some other independent witnesses, the petitioner was handed over to his wife Smt. Snail Kumari at his native village Ranipur Bhatt.
(x) The conduct of Ram Lakhan-father of petitioner Man Singh had been quite non-cooperative with the CBI during the course of investigation. The investigation further revealed that Man Singh had stayed in the house of his Mausa Ram Charan, father-in-law Bhawanideen at Baghelbari and with other relatives at Panchampur. This fact was well within the knowledge of the petitioner's father Ram Lakhan.