S.S.NIJJAR, J. - (1.)THE petitioner has filed this Habeas Corpus petition alleging therein that respondent No. 3 had called his son Pardeep Kumar and his son-in-law Rajinder Singh to his house and kept them in an illegal custody from 8th August till 10th August, 1999. They were kept in the illegal custody till the evening of 17th August, 1999. When the Habeas Corpus petition came up for preliminary hearing this Court appointed a Warrant Officer. He was directed to secure the release of the alleged detenus, namely Pardeep Kumar, Rajinder Singh, Smt. Saroj, wife of Rajinder Singh. The Warrant Officer submitted interim report. In this report, it is stated that the Warrant Officer had visited the premises of CIA Staff, Hissar at 10.05 A.M. on 18th August, 1999. He had found Pardeep Kumar and Rajinder Singh, the alleged detenus near the car parking of the CIA Staff premises. He brought them to Chandigarh on 18th August, 1999. This Court directed that the detenus are at liberty and they were free to go wherever they wanted to go. They were also directed to get themselves medico-legally examined, if so advised. The matter was adjourned to 27th August, 1999.
(2.)THE Warrant Officer gave final report on 25th August, 1999. In this report, the Warrant Officer has stated that the two detenus namely Pardeep Kumar and Rajinder singh were found sitting near the car parking of CIA Staff premises. He has clarified that everybody can have free access to the car parking as the CIA Staff building, Hisar, has no boundary wall. There is also no guard deployed in the premises of the CIA Staff building. On inquiry being made about the presence of Pardeep Kumar and Rajinder Singh, Sub Inspector Dharam Chand informed the Warrant Officer that they were never arrested nor were wanted in any case. He had also stated that he had no knowledge about the arrival of the detenus near the car park. When contacted, the detenus while weeping, told the Warrant Officer that Om Parkash, respondent No. 3 had brought them from Siwani, district Bhiwani in the morning and left them near the car park saying that he would come back at 10.30 A.M. They further told him they did not dare to see the Incharge CIA staff because they were beaten up mercilessly by Om Parkash and his associates. They had been tortured in the house of respondent No. 3 and at the brick kiln. Thereafter, the Warrant Officer visited the Police Station, City, Hissar. On inquiry, the SHO told the Warrant Officer that the detenus were neither arrested nor were wanted in any case. He further informed that in fact FIR No. 347 dated 9.8.1999 had been registered against Pardeep Kumar but he was not arrested as there was no evidence of his involvement in that case. Thereafter, the Warrant Officer reached the house of respondent No. 3. He was not found present in the house as he had supposedly gone to Hissar in the morning.
On subsequent hearing of the petition, respondents Nos. 1 to 3 were directed to remain present in Court. Respondents Nos. 1 and 2 are present in Court. Having examined the report of the Warrant Officer, I am of the considered opinion that respondents Nos. 1 and 2 have not committed any irregularity in the discharge of their duties. Therefore, no action need be taken against them.

(3.)HOWEVER , so far as respondent No. 3 is concerned, he is prima facie responsible for having committed a number of criminal offences. The medico- legal report of Pardeep Kumar and Rajinder Singh has been handed over to the Court. Without doubt, both these persons seem to have been subjected to a severe torture. Consequently, respondent No. 3 has to be dealt with in accordance with law. Respondents Nos. 1 and 2 are present in Court and are hereby handed over the medico-legal report of the two detenus. They are directed to hand over the same to the Incharge of the Police Station, City, Hissar, who will forthwith, register criminal case against respondent No. 3 and his associates. The Incharge of the Police Station, City, Hissar is directed to ensure the safety and the security of the petitioner, detenus and their family during the pendency of the criminal investigation and in trial thereafter.