H.S.BEDI, J. - (1.) THIS is yet another case of disappearance from Police custody. The petitioner is the father of one Parminder Singh, who was admittedly arrested by Chandigarh Police, on 4th May, 1994 for an offence under Section 392 of the Indian Penal Code registered at Police Station Mohali, on the allegations that he had taken away a Taxi from its driver. On 4th May, 1994 itself the accused was taken into custody by the Punjab Police and was produced by the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Kharar, on the same day and police remand for seven days was sought. The Magistrate granted remand for three days and the accused was required to be produced in the Court on 7th of May, 1994. The case of the petitioner is that instead of producing the accused in Court on that day, it was intimated that on the previous intervening night i.e. 6th/7th May, 1994, the accused had escaped from the police look up alongwith his co-accused Harinder Singh and for the said escape another FIR had been registered against the two accused.
(2.) ON notice to the respondents, a reply has been filed by respondents 1, 3, 4 and 5 and the facts as stated have been substantially admitted to be correct. It has been admitted that the accused was taken into custody by the Punjab Police and, thereafter, produced before the Magistrate at Kharar and that he escaped from police custody on the intervening night of 6th/7th May, 1994. It will be seen from the petition and not denied in the written statement that the accused was a young boy of 20 years and a student of 10 + 2 class. He was first arrested by the U.T. Police and was charged under Sections 353/279 and 124-A of Indian Penal Code read with Sections 3, 4 and 5 of the Terrorists and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1985, but he was acquitted by a competent Court on 19th March, 1994. It also transpires from the facts that within one month, thereafter, he was again picked up by U.T. Police and handed over to the Punjab Police on the same day.
(3.) FROM the facts stated above, the apprehension of the petitioner that Parminder Singh had been eliminated is not wholly unjustified. It is, therefore, directed that in order to establish the truth, a further enquiry is required to be made by an a judicial officer. A direction is, therefore, issued to the Sessions Judge, Ropar, who will himself conduct an enquiry in the matter and submit his report by the end of March, 1995.;