Gopal Singh, J. - (1.) THIS order will dispose of both habeas corpus petition, Criminal Original No. 25 -M of 1969 and Criminal Original No. 26 of 1969, a case taken up by the Court under section 3 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1952. Mohinder Singh brother -in -law of Bachan Singh detenu filed on February 12, 1969 petition under Section 491 of the Code of Criminal Procedure against Ram Chander, Station House Officer, Saddar Police Station, Sirsa. In that petition, I issued rule nisi on February 13, 1989. As it was represented to me that the detenu was being detained in the Police Station and that after the service of rule nisi, the Station House Officer would either make him vanish from there or set him at liberty and no action could be taken against the respondent, if the detenu is so dealt with by him, I directed that the Superintendent, Criminal Branch of the High Court be deputed to serve the rule nisi upon the respondent and also to see for himself if the detenu was being illegally detained in the premises of the Police Station. In pursuance of that order, Shri Madan Tarlok Singh, Superintendent reached the Police Station at 4.30 a.m. on February 14, 1969, He contacted a Foot Constable and Mukhtiar Singh -, Moharrir Head Constable, who were on duty at that time. According to the report submitted by the Superintendent, the respondent came there and grumbled to the Superintendent saying that he should not have troubled him at that odd hour and suggested to him to see the Assistant Superintendent of Police in connection therewith. The Superintendent said that he was there to serve the rule nisi upon him and to see if the detenu was being detained in the premises of the Police Station. Thereupon, the respondent replied that he could not tell him anything about the presence of the detenu. It is stated in that report that the respondent said that he did not care for the order of the Court and directed the Constable standing close by to take the Superintendent out of the premises of the Police Station. On February 14, 1969, when the rule was returnable, Bachan Singh detenu and the respondent appeared before Harbans Singh J. The detenu filed an affidavit to the effect that he had been confined to the barrack of Kanahya, Foot Constable, that he was kept in that barrack till 6.00 a.m. on February 14, 1969, that he was later on kept behind the police lock -up till 3 30 p.m. and that thereafter he was taken in a jeep and released at 5 00 p.m. at a distance of 17 or 18 miles from the town of Sirsa.
(2.) FINDING that the respondent had treated an officer of this Court with scant courtesy and did not allow him to carry out the orders of this Court, Harbans Singh J. directed that he should show -cause as to why proceedings should not be taken against him for contempt of Court. In reply to the rule nisi and the show -cause notice issued to him, the respondent has filed two affidavits. In one he denied that there was any case registered in the Police Station against Bachan Singh or that he had detained him there. He, however, admitted that Bachan Singh was wanted for interrogation in connection with the case of first information report No. 15 dated February 7, 1969 registered with the Police Station against Prem Chand but that he had not contacted the detenu at all in connection therewith. In the second affidavit, the respondent has stated that he left for village Jodhkan by train at 3.45 a. m. leaving Police Station, Sirsa at 320 a m. on February 14 1969. In support of that stand, he has relied on an entry to that effect in the Daily Diary and that he on return from Jodhkan came to know about the visit of the Superintendent in connection with the detention of the detenu. He has thus denied his presence at the time when the Superintendent visited the Police Station early in the morning on February 14, 1969. As the detenu has already been released and is no longer being detained, the habeas Corpus petition has become in fructuous and is dismissed as such. As has been clearly stated by the Superintendent, I have no doubt that the Station House Officer was sent for by the Superintendent, was present in the premises of the Police Station and behaved in a very irresponsible manner in showing disrespect to the order of the Court. There is common practice of detaining for long certain persons about whom there is some suspicion as to their being associated or connected with the commission of a crime or altogether innocent persons for some collateral end in view. Under the pretext of interrogation, innocent persons are improperly and illegally detained in Police Stations without there being made any formal entry in the Daily Diary or the proceedings in connection with the interrogation being otherwise reduced into writing to enable the police officers to continue torturing the persons so detained for inordinate period of time. Such practice deserves to be severely condemned and must be discouraged The report of the Superintendent and the affidavit of Bachan Singh coupled with the fact admitted by the respondent in his affidavit that the detenu was required for the purpose of interrogation in connection with the case pending against Prem Chand leave no doubt that the detenu was being improperly and illegally detained by the respondent in the Police Station Had the detenu been not there in the morning when the Superintendent arrived for looking up for him, there is no reason why co -operation of the respondent in showing around the Superintendent the premises to satisfy him that the detenu was not there, would not have been forthcoming. The Superintendent of this Court is in no way interested in the detenu or his petitioner nor has any animus to submit a false report either about the presence of the respondent or the misbehavior in which the latter indulged. Had as a matter of fact, the respondent left the Police Station for village Jodhkan to attend to the investigation of another case, there the reply of Mukhtiar Singh, Moharrir Head Constable and the Foot Constable both on duty, upon inquiry by the Superintendent as to where the respondent was as he had to be served with the rule nisi issued and the desire expressed by him, that he be sent for, would have been that he was not in station and had gone elsewhere for investigation of a case. The conduct of the respondent in showing utter lack of respect for the order of this Court in not allowing the Superintendent to search the premises and thereafter releasing the detenue in order to avoid being condemned for his illegal detention and in taking up the false stand of his being not in station and in the premises of the Police Station and being elsewhere is reprehensible The circumstances referred to above are vocal for the fact that the respondent was present in the premises of the Police Station and behaved in a nasty and irresponsible manner in which no Police Officer charged with the duty of discerning truth by investigation of cases should do. Such a conduct cannot be allowed to go with impunity.
(3.) HE has expressed unconditional apology. He was regretful and repentant in Court for what he had done. His apology and repentance can be extenuating circumstance in not giving him severe punishment but the same in no way detract anything from the contempt of Court committed by him I convict the respondent under Section 3 of Contempt of Courts Act and impose upon him fine of Rs 100.00. In case of default of payment of fine, within 10 days from today, he will undergo imprisonment for one month.;