RANJIT SINGH,J. - (1.) SERIOUS concern shown by the Courts and strict measures to check custodial death or use of criminal force during investigation/interrogation, has not deterred the police force to mend its way and go in for scientific investigation of a crime. Use of violence by police sometime leading to death has apparently gone unabated, despite concerns having been expressed by various Courts in this regard from time to time. The facts in the present case are indicative of a custodial death, though police has made elaborate and detailed efforts to give it a colour of crime on the part of the deceased boy, who has lost his life at the young age of about 17 years. The case of alleged custodial death has apparently come to the notice of this Court on the basis of telegram initiated by Wali Ahmed, a resident of Gurgaon, alleging that his minor son, named Ali Mohammad, was picked up by the police on 26.1.2012 at about 3 P.M. from Khandsa road. The telegram initiated on 3.2.2012 and received in the Chief Justice Secretariat of this Court on 8.2.2012, was put up on the judicial side and was treated as Criminal Writ Petition No.286 of 2012. The contents of the telegram may need reproduction for easy assimilation of the allegations made:- "Sub: Regarding illegal detention. The police of P.S.Sector 10 A, Gurgaon and other police official of Gurgaon Police lifted away my minor son (DOB 03.10.1995) namely Ali Mohd s/o Sh.Wali Ahmed on 26.01.2012 at about 3.00 PM from the Khandsa Road detained illegally torturing him mercilessly. Condition serious and wants to involve in a false and frivolous case and not produced in any court immediate action prayed for Wali Ahmed Father of Sh.Ali Mohd R/o Village Biharipur P S Baheri Tehsil and District Bareilley UP."
(2.) IT may need a notice here that subsequently the petitioner initiated another telegram on 29.2.2012, which was received on 1.3.2012, where he has alleged that his son has been murdered and this telegram was in continuation of the earlier telegram dated 201 In this telegram, the petitioner has named Inspector/SHO Ramesh Kumar and ASI Rakesh Kumar of Police Station Sector 10, Gurgaon, to have committed murder of his son. This was treated as Criminal Writ Petition No.485 of 2012 and ordered to be heard with the earlier Criminal Writ Petition No.286 of 201 Thus, both the writ petitions are being decided by this common order. Number of such communications are routinely received in this Court, some of which are put up on judicial side. This communication was accordingly placed on the judicial side and came up for hearing on 9.201 A routine action followed and notice was issued for 15.201 On the asking of Court, Deputy Advocate General for the State of Haryana accepted notice on behalf of the State and prayed for time to have instructions. The grievance made in the telegram was noted by the Court, where it was also alleged that the son of the petitioner was not only illegally detained but was being tortured mercilessly. The father had feared false implication of his son, which he had expressed in the telegram itself. What followed thereafter was an eye opener. 3. Unlike usual lethargy, as is shown by the police in such cases to respond, the police had been rather prompt in filing reply in this case on the first date when the petition came up for hearing on 16.201 Perhaps, the police was seeking a decent burial of this case in hurry so that it could avoid minute examination of the facts. Rather, the petitioner is accused of approaching the Court with unclean hands and to have twisted the material facts. To substantiate this allegation, it is stated that FIR No.34 dated 30.1.2012, under Sections 393/34 IPC was got registered at Police Station Sector 10-A by one complainant, Leeladhar. This person was working as a Guard in the premises of Plot No.135-136, Sector 37, Gurgaon. Through him, this FIR was recorded on 30.1.2012, making vague and unsubstantiated allegation against some unknown persons. Leeladhar has alleged that on the intervening night of 28/29.1.2012, he was on a Guard duty at the premises of the plot referred above, when at 1.30 A.M, 3-4 young persons attempted to enter in the premises of the plot. May sound strange, but he has stated that they did so with an intention to commit robbery. How he could get into the minds of these persons to allege intention of robbery on their part appears to have remained unexplained. If the events are true, those would sound more intriguing than surprising. The complainant states to have fired in the air and then states to have heard a noise telling 'Ali' to hurry up and run away as otherwise they would be caught. The complainant has then gone on to make a prophesy by stating that the fire might have caused injury on the person of any of them. The contents of the complaint may leave enough indication about the complaint being made up story.
(3.) THIS also did not impress the Court and it found huge gaps and holes in the story. The Court then passed a detailed order as the reply revealed a death of a young boy, who had reportedly died at a hospital, which was sought to be linked to the use of fire arm by complainant, Leeladhar. The police was not only found to be too prompt in coming up with this response but was further quick in investigating and solving this FIR at supersonic speed. This FIR appeared to be a procured complaint as the minute analysis of the facts and allegations would ultimately reveal. This Court, after noticing the facts in detail as reflected in the reply, passed the following order on 16.2.2012:- "A telegraphic communication received through post makes an allegation that the minor son of the complainant was lifted by police of Gurgaon on 26.01.2012. Allegation further is that he has been illegally detained and is being tortured mercilessly. The petitioner-father has further expressed his apprehension that his son is likely to be involved in some false case. Notice was issued to the State counsel. On behalf of the respondent-State, reply has been filed by Naresh Kumar, Inspector, SHO Police Station, Sector 10A, Distt. Gurgaon. In the reply, it is disclosed that FIR No.34, dated 30.1.2012, is lodged by complainant Leeladhar under Sections 393/34 IPC, at Police Station Sector 10- A, Gurgaon, alleging that on the intervening night of 28.1.2012/29.1.2012, the complainant was on duty as Guard in the premises of Plot No.135-36, Sector 37, Gurgaon. At about 1:30 A.M. three/four young persons tried to enter in the premises with intention to commit robbery. The complainant had statedly fired in the air. One of person was heard naming Ali telling him to hurry up and run away, as otherwise they would be caught. The complainant states that the gun shot might have caused injuries to one of the young man. It is then disclosed in the reply filed that son of the petitioner was found admitted in hospital and has ultimately died on 6.2.2012 at Delhi. The petitioner's son has died of bullet injury. Inspector Naresh Kumar, who has come to assist the State counsel, has referred to some record to show that the police had made an attempt to record the statement of the deceased, while he was in the hospital, but the deceased was termed unfit to make a statement. The story as projected in the reply is rather disturbing. A young boy has been done to death due to gun shot and the police instead of properly investigating the case has rather accused the deceased of attempted robbery. The investigating agency apparently has hurriedly concluded so. This cannot be easily explained. How would the guard know that the person had come to commit robbery. The guard had fired in the air. He had hit one person who has died. This death has easily been explained in this manner which would not inspire confidence. How the police reached and traced the deceased to various hospitals would also appear a bit surprising. As per the police, the deceased was taken to hospital by his companions. None had reported to the police about the whereabouts of the deceased. Father of the deceased has made allegations of illegal detention and has accused the police for torturing his son. Prima facie, the story as projected by the police in the reply, does not appear convincing. A human being has been killed and the police apparently has failed to investigate the case from all angles. Even the cause of death is not ascertained. In view of the allegations made by the petitioner, the case may call for a thorough probe. Since the allegations are against a police official and it is a case of death, there may even be a need of judicial inquiry to unearth the true state of affairs. The State may file further response, if required. It is considered appropriate to request a counsel of this Court to assist the Court in this case as amicus curiae. Mr. P.S. Ahluwalia, Advocate, is present in the Court, and has consented to appear as amicus curiae to assist the Court. Complete set of paper book be supplied to the amicus curiae. Further reply, if any, be filed by the adjourned date. The entire record of police investigation be handed over the State counsel, who shall seal it and send it to the Commissioner of Police, Gurgaon. The State counsel shall also further convey the directions to the Commissioner of Police, Gurgaon, to seal the entire case file of the case and all other connected documents including the record of both the hospitals. Adjourned to 7.3.2012. Copy of the order be provided to State counsel under the signatures of the Special Secretary of this Court." ;