JUDGMENT
P.K. Bahri, J.
(1) MR.J.S.CHAUHAN has filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code seeking a writ of habeas corpus against the State of Delhi, Commissioner of Police and S.H.O. of Police Station Vasant Vihar for production of his son Sanjeev. It was averred in the petition that the petitioner is the owner of a two-wheeler scooter bearing registration No.DEO 4506 and his son, on 4th January 1995, had been asked to get that scooter repaired from a mechanic and since that date, his son had become untraceable and a written complaint was also made to the S.H.O. of Police Station defense Colony on 7th January 1995 in this respect.
(2) It is further disclosed in the petition that on 11th January 1995, a telephone call came to him informing him that his scooter was lying in the Vasant Vihar Police Station and on the following day, he visited the said Police Station but one Mr.Kamal Dev refused to release the scooter and also refused to disclose the circumstances under which the scooter had been seized and also did not give the whereabouts of his son Sanjeev.
(3) According to the petitioner, on 12th January 1995, he received a telephone call threatening him that in case he got in touch with the police, he would loose his son. It was further disclosed in the petition that on 4th January 1995, his son had attended the proceedings in case pertaining to Fir No.155/89 under Section 25 of The Arms Act of the Police Station Vasant Vihar in the Court of Sh.V.K.Bansal, Metropolitan Magistrate. It was also disclosed by the petitioner that in the said Arms Act case, the constable, who had allegedly witnessed the recovery of the knife, had made a statement that no such knife had been recovered from the petitioner and a pistol was recovered and the public witness, who was cited, had become untraceable although he was resident of the same village as the Investigating Officer of that case.
(4) It is further mentioned that Sanjeev was also challaned on 8th December 1990 in case under Section 91 read with 93 of the Delhi Police Act in which case he was acquitted in August 1994. It is further alleged that on 29th December 1990, the petitioner’s aforesaid scooter was seized by Police Station Vasant Vihar vide D.D.No.8A when it was being driven by his son Sanjeev who was humiliated and later on the said scooter along with other articles were released vide order of the Metropolitan Magistrate dated 2nd February 1991. It is alleged that due to such harassment being caused to his son by the police officials of Vasant Vihar Police Station, the petitioner shifted his quarter from 85-P, Cpwd Colony, Vasant Vihar,New Delhi to S-1/128,Sadiq Nagar, New Delhi.
(5) It is also averred that on 13th January 1995, the petitioner had moved an application in the Court of Sh.V.K.Bansal, Metropolitan Magistrate and police of Vasant Vihar then reported that the scooter was seized under Section 86 of Delhi Police Act as it was found lying abandoned and an F.I.R. No.4/95 under Section 379 has been registered on 7th January 1995 wherein Sanjeev is an accused for having committed the theft of a motorcycle belonging to the complainant in that case on 4th January 1995. So, asserting that whereabouts of his son Sanjeev are not being found out from all quarters, thus writ of habeus corpus was sought.
(6) It appears that during the pendency of this writ petition, in which show-cause notice had been issued, the petitioner’s son Sanjeev was shown to have been arrested during the intervening night of January 20/21, 1995 by Trilok Puri police by Police Post Mandawali under Sections 197/202, 3/181, 129/177 and 39/192 of Motor Vehicles Act along with the motorcycle which was allegedly stolen by petitioner’s son on 4th January 1995 and Sanjeev was produced before the Metropolitan Magistrate on 21st January 1995 and was released on bail.
(7) Of course, the relief of habeus corpus is no longer available in this regard. However, it has been urged before us by learned counsel for the petitioner that his son had been kept in illegal confinement by certain unknown persons and some enquiry ought to be held in order to find out the names of such persons who had kept Sanjeev in illegal confinement from January 4, 1995 till he was shown arrested on the intervening night of January 20/21, 1995.
(8) Sanjeev Kumar has filed the affidavit in which he has disclosed that on 4th January 1995, after he had attended the court proceedings, he had gone with the scooter of the petitioner to Khanna Market, Lodhi Colony to get it repaired from a mechanic but when he reached near Dayal Singh College, a white Maruti van intercepted him and deliberately hit his scooter as a result of which he along with the scooter had fallen down and four persons came out of the said van while the driver of the van kept sitting inside and they forcibly abducted him in that van after dragging him and he was kept confined in a particular room for about 16 days and those five persons had taken away his wrist watch and currency notes of the value of Rs.210-212.00 and his learning driving license and he was made to sign some blank papers and on that intervening night of 20th and 21st January, he was taken in that van by those very persons and they dropped him somewhere as he was permitted to get down to urinate and the van was driven off and two police men appeared immediately at the spot and took him to police post and made him to sign certain blank papers and he was produced before the Metropolitan Magistrate on 21st January 1995 at 3 P.M. He says that the persons who had abducted him and confined him for those 16 days were tall, healthy and rough persons and they used to hold out threat to his life.
(9) In the present case, affidavit has been filed by Mahender Singh, Sho of Police Station Vasant Vihar and by Sh.S.N.Srivastava, D.C.P, Headquarters-II. They have denied that petitioner’s son was at any time illegally detained by the police.
(10) Certain peculiar facts have come on the record which throw some suspicion on the conduct of the police of Police Station Vasant Vihar. The petitioner had lodged the complaint about missing of his son with Police Station defense Colony on 7th January 1995 at about 12.10 P.M. Significantly enough the F.I.R. had been registered under Section 379 Indian Penal Code . by the Police Station Vasant Vihar on 7th January 1995 at 00.10 A.M. on the allegations that Rajinder Singh, on 4th January 1995, had parked his motorcycle at 9 P.M. near his house No.22-N, C.P.W.D. Complex, Vasant Vihar, New Delhi and Sanjeev, petitioner’s son, had come on the said scooter of the petitioner at that place and leaving his scooter at that place, had driven away the motorcycle belonging to Rajinder Singh and a chowkidar namely Mr.Chitra Bahadur Thapa had witnessed this fact and he informed Rajinder Singh about this fact on that particular night and Rajinder Singh, who was known to Sanjeev, had been visiting Sanjeev’s house to find out about the motorcycle and as no information was being given by Sanjeev’s family members, thus, he gave a written complaint on 6th January 1995 which was converted into F.I.R. during the intervening night of 6th and 7th January 1995 at 00.10 A.M.
(11) It is not understood why Rajinder Singh became so keen to get the F.I.R. registered at an unearthly hour when there was no urgency in the matter because according to him, his motorcycle had been stolen by Sanjeev on 4th January 1995 and he had written out a complaint on 6th January 1995 and why he could not get in touch with the police in the day time. The learned counsel for the State has failed to give us any satisfactory explanation on this unusual conduct of registering such a case at such an unusual hour pertaining to the incident which took place two days earlier.
(12) Inference can possibly be drawn, prima facie, that the police of Police Station Vasant Vihar must have come to know about the petitioner moving the defense Colony Police Station with regard to his missing son. Prima facie, it also does not appear as to if Sanjeev was to commit the theft of motorcycle, why would he leave his own scooter at the spot and go away with the motorcycle and where he could have remained for 16 days with said motorcycle and then conveniently he could be caught and shown arrested during the intervening night of 20th and 21st January 1995 by Police Post Mandawali under certain minor offences of Motor Vehicle Act. The whole facts and circumstances, as have come out on the record, appear to be mysterious which require to be probed in in order to determine whether Sanjeev had remained in illegal detention or not for a period of 16 days. It is difficult to accept the contention of the learned counsel for the State that the petitioner had put in the complaint on 7th January 1995 as a sort of any defense mechanism to save his son from the clutches of law.
(13) Learned counsel for the State has contended that as the main relief in the petition has become infructuous and the matter may be dropped and Sanjeev may be left to have his remedy, if any, in accordance with the law as available to him and he has referred to a decision of a Division Bench of this Court reported in C.D.Chawla Vs. Commissioner of Police, 1994 (3) Apex Decisions 775. We have gone through that judgment. It is on totally different facts. In similar cases the Supreme Court has got held the enquiry made from judicial officers.
(14) In Writ Petition No.352-353/94, Durga Prasad Tomar Vs. State of U.P, decided on January 23, 1995, the Supreme Court had got the enquiry held from a Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ghaziabad in order to find out the facts with regard to the illegal detention.
(15) In Arvinder Singh Bagga Vs. State of U.P, , the Supreme Court had required the District Judge to hold an enquiry with regard to allegations of illegal detention of the appellants in that case.
(16) In view of the aforesaid, we direct the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Patiala House Courts to hold the enquiry to find as to whether Sanjeev had been illegally detained or not for the period 4th January 1995 to 20th January 1995 by anyone or not and try to trace out the identity of such persons who had allegedly illegally detained the petitioner’s son Sanjeev.
(17) Copy of this order be sent to the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate for making the necessary enquiry. The matter be again listed after a report is received from the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate.