High Court Punjab-Haryana High Court

Rakesh Kumar vs State Of Punjab on 31 July, 2008

Punjab-Haryana High Court
Rakesh Kumar vs State Of Punjab on 31 July, 2008
IN THE PUNJAB             AND      HARYANA         HIGH       COURT      AT
CHANDIGARH

                                       Crl.M.No.M-12233 of 2008

                                       Date of Decision : 31.7.2008.

Rakesh Kumar

                                                        ..Petitioner.
Vs.

State of Punjab
                                                        ..Respondent.


CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN


Present :   Mr.Jatinder Singh, Advocate for the petitioner.

            Mr.I.P.S.Sidhu, Sr.DAG Punjab.

RAKESH KUMAR JAIN, J.

Counsel for the petitioner submits that pursuant to order dated

28.5.2008, the petitioner has joined investigation. This fact is admitted by

the counsel for the respondent-State on instructions received from SI

Surender Singh. He further states that custody of the petitioner is not

required for interrogation, therefore, order dated 28.5.2008 is made

absolute. It is pertinent to mention here that in the order dated 28.5.2008,

the Court had observed as under:

“Since interim relief had to be granted to the petitioner

on account of default of the State, Senior Superintendent of

Police, Amritsar is directed to take appropriate action against

the defaulting official and also to devise some way so that such

lapses do not recur, and to apprise the Court on the next date of

hearing about the same.”

Counsel for the respondent-State has placed on record

communication by SSP Amritsar, City to Advocate General, Punjab,
Crl.M.No.M-12233 of 2008 -2-

Chandigarh vide letter No.4771/Lit. dated 30.7.2008 vide which the office

of Advocate General, Punjab has been informed that pursuant to the order

dated 28.5.2008, an enquiry against the defaulting official i.e. HC

Mukandbir Singh No.3449/ASR has been ordered vide office No.20818-

22/B dated 28.7.2008. This letter also contains that necessary

directions/guidelines have already been issued to all the Supervisory

officers and SHOs for proper pairvi of the case along with complete record.

In view of the above, no further direction is required to be made

in view of order dated 28.5.2008. The petition is disposed of.





                                             (Rakesh Kumar Jain)
31.7.2008                                          Judge
Meenu