- (1.) THOUGH the petitioner's son Rajesh Singh is no longer in police custody and, therefore, there is no ground to allow this Habeas Corpus petition, but certain facts and working of the police have come to our notice which we want to observe here in this order with certain directions.
(2.) RAJESH Singh, son of the petitioner, is a suspended gun-man commando in the Rajasthan Police. He was arrested in FIR No. 399/92 u/s. 302 IPC and though it is the case of the petitioner that his son before his arrest was actually shown, was illegally detained, but we need not go into this question and we may straight away say that on the application being moved for bail, this court in S. B. Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 2112 of 1993 ordered the release of RAJESH Singh on bail. After the bail bonds have been furnished, he was released on bail on 21st May 1993 at 4. 00 p. m. from District Jail, Kota. The case of the petitioner is that no sooner his son was released on bail as aforesaid, police personnels of Police Station Nayapura, Kota again illegally arrested Rajesh Singh and he was taken to Police Station Nayapura, Kota. The names of the police personnels of the Police Station Nayapura Kota who are said to have taken Rajesh Singh, have not been disclosed. According to the petitioner on 22. 5. 1993 when the counsel for Rajesh Singh moved an application before the concerned Magistrate at Kota, Rajesh Singh was illegally transferred to Police Station Dadabari, Kola and the petitioner and his wife are said to have seen Rajesh Singh on 21. 5. 1993 at Police Station Nayapura and on 22. 5. 1993 at police station Dadabari, Kota. This petition was filed in this court on 28. 5. 1993 on the ground that till that date, he was not knowing the whereabouts of Rajesh Singh. In the reply filed on behalf of the respondents, it has been stated that he was co-accused in a case and one of them was Vivek Pal Singh. Vivek Pal Singh was in District Jail, Ajmer in some other case and police had gone to Ajmer to bring him to Kota and it was thought proper for investigation to confront Rajesh Singh with Vivek Pal Singh and, therefore, the petitioner was sent for, but because Vivek Pal Singh could not come on 21. 5. 1993, he was allowed to go and was instructed to come back on 22. 5. 1993. He again is said to have come on 22. 5. 1993 at 8. 25 a. m. , but because Vivek Pal Singh had not come by then, he was again said to have been allowed to go and was instructed to come on the next day. Again, on 23. 5. 1993 he is said to have come at 6. 10 p. m. and he was made face to face with Vivek Pal Singh and is said to have been allowed to go back. He again comes to the Police Station on 24. 5. 1993 at 10. 00 p. m. and again is said to have been made face to face, with Vivek Pal Singh. Then on 28. 5. 1993, Rajesh Singh was arrested u/s. 110 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. After having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate and having gone through the general diary, we are of the opinion that the entries in the general diary do not prima facie appear to be made correctly and the matter needs enquiry. The reasons are as under: Vide Rapat No. l078, 9. 30 p. m. dated 20. 5. 1993, Mohan Lal S. I. along with two police constables left the police station for Ajmer to bring Vivek Pal Singh in FIR No. 161/1992 u/s. 302 IPC. In anticipation of coming of Vivek Pal Singh on 21. 5. 93 the accused who as said above had been released on bail on 21. 5. 1993 is said to have been sent for, was called to the police station. It will be see from the perusal of the entry No. 1152 of 21. 5. 93 that Rajesh Singh was called to the police station. But because Vivek Pal Singh had not come by them, he is said to have been allowed to go and to come back on the next day. On being asked the learned Government Advocate could not show any entry in the general diary on 21. 5. 93 by which any of the police personnel is deputed or sent to call Rajesh Singh who as said above was released on bail. \ It is common knowledge that the practice and requirement of law is that as and when any police person leaves the police station, he has to make an entry in the general diary and on return he has to make an entry in the general diary of return. At any rate, there is no entry of any police personnel who has been deputed or sent to bring Rajesh Singh after release on bail to the police station. The case of the petitioner is that after the release of his son Rajesh Singh on bail, he was taken away by the officers of the police station Nayapura directly from the jail and in the light of the aforesaid omission of any entry about departure of any police personnel, this allegation cannot be brushed aside lightly. That apart, once an accused is released on bail, even a witness, the requirement is as provided u/s. 160 Cr. P. C. that it is only by an order in writing, the attendance of the witness can be required by the I. O. , if the presence of the accused who has been released on bail is required in police station, there must be an order in writing. It is not permissible a police personnel and he will ask the accused person Such a practice if already prevailing must be stopped been released on bail and if his presence is required must be an order in writing by the I. O. requiring him to be present in the police station. There is no such record and none has been produced by the learned Government Advocate and he was frank enough in saying that no such record is in existence so far as his knowledge is concerned. Therefore, also it appears to us that immediately after the release of the son of the petitioner Rajesh Singh on bail, he was brought at the police station as it does not appeal to us that once who has been released on bail will come to the police station as stated in the reply filed by the State Now we proceed further and come to 22. 5. 93. We have already said above that Rajesh Singh was directed to appear in the police station on 22. 5. 1993. No such oral direction could have been made and do not appear to have been given and the possibility is that he was kept in the police station right from 21. 5. 1993 upto 28 (5. 1993 when he was shown arrested u/s. 110 Cr. P. C. A look at entry No. 1170 at 8. 25 a. m. in the general diary will show that at that time Rajesh Singh who is said to have been bound down a day earlier, comes to the police station, but because by then also Vivek Pal Singh had not been brought from Ajmer, he was allowed to go with a direction to come to the police station next day. We now come to entry No. 1242 of 23. 5. 1993 and from its perusal it appears that by then Vivek Pal Singh had been brought from Ajmer and Rajesh Singh was confronted with him. In other words each of them were brought face to face and Rajesh Singh was allowed to go. There was no instructions to Rajesh Singh to come on the next day. There is also one fact which reveals that there are two entries No. 1241 and 1242 which are said to have been recorded at 6. 10 p. m. How can two entries be made at the same time. At least some time must have taken in recording entry No. 1241 and at the same time another entry No. 1242 could not have been made i. e. at 6. 10 p. m. On 24. 5. 1993, there is an entry No. 1303, 10 p. m. which has been recorded in the general diary that Rajesh Singh who was sent for was made face to face with Vivek Pal Singh. We have already said above that he was not bound-down on 23. 5,93 to come again on 24. 5. 93 and, therefore, it has been wrongly recorded. We fail to understand how he could have come on 24. 5. 93 at 10. 00 p. m. , father it being night. On 25. 5. 93 there is entry No. 1358 and a reading of that entry will show that Rajesh Singh Commando vide Rapat No. 1303 dated 24. 5. 93 is said to have been bound-down to come to the police station for being face to face with accused Chandra @ Vivek Pal Singh, but he did not arrive. This entry is of 9. 00 p. m. again. There is another entry at 9. 00 p. m. No. 1357. We have already referred to entry No. 1303 dated 24. 5. 93 and there was no entry that Rajesh Singh was bound down to appear on 25. 5. 93. The entry No 1411 dated 26. 5. 93 is of 9. 36 p. m. and according to it Rajesh Singh who was said to have bound down by entry No. 1303 dated 24. 5. 93 to come to the police station, has not yet arrived and because he could not come and the police party has reported that he (Rajesh Singh) and his companions were threatening the witnesses of the case and it is likely that they may commit robary, therefore, a direction to keep watch on Rajesh Singh. Then in police station Nayapura Rajesh Singh was shown arrested on 28. 5. 93 u/s. 110 Cr. P. C. From the above mentioned various entries of the general diary of police station Dadabari, prima facie it appears to us that the entries in the general diary have not been correctly recorded, and the possibility cannot be excluded and it appears to be more probable that as stated by the petitioner in the Habeas Corpus petition that, after release on bail on 21. 5. 1993, Rajesh Singh was taken to the police station and was kept there, was not allowed to go, perhaps was illegally detained and only on 28. 5. 1993 his arrest was shown u/s ,110 Cr. P. C.
(3.) IT is a case where a further enquiry to us appears to be necessary so that if ultimately it is held that as prima facie observed by us the entries in the general diary do not appear to have been correctly recorded, is correct, the guilty persons are dealt with properly. The entries in the general dairy are very important and if any person is held accountable for making wrong entry, it will be an eye opener to others not to indulge in such practice. We direct the learned Sessions Judge, Kota to make a detailed enquiry in the matter and make his recommendations and send them to the Director General of Police and also a report of enquiry to this court. The enquiry should be completed as soon as possible but in no case later than two months. The report then should be placed before this court. .;