SCR.A/894/1995 of RAJENDRA M PATEL Vs GOPIRAM DEDRAJ AGRWAL on 21 July 1995

ORAL ORDER:

Mr.M.C.Barot, learned Advocate vehemently addressed this Court thatthe matter should be adjouned as his Counsel is sick. When an Advocate isthere on the recford, the matter is not required to be adjourned , may be, onthe ground that the counsel is not This is a petition filed for Habeas Corpus by Advocate Mr. Barot onbehalf of one Rajendra M.Patel, styling himself as a Committee Member ofGanesh Sagar Co-operative Housing Society Ltd, inter alia, alleging thatrespondents have detained Murarilal Shripal, Munnalal Ramnaresh andShivrahjsingh Shetansingh against their will and desire. Respondent No.8 isPolice Inspector, Ghatlodia Police Station, Naranpura, Ahmedabad andrespondent No.7 is the power of attorney holder of respondents Nos.1 to 6 asrevealed from the investigation. It is alleged in the petition that the petitioner's society was the owner of the land in question. The petitionerhas averred that the society engaged security personnel belonging to one NewRoyal Security. The petitioner learnt on 29-5-95 at about 10.00 a.m.that therespondents came to attack the security personnel; had a quarrel with them incollusion with Police Inspector, Ghatlodia Police Station and removed themfrom that place to the police station. It is also required to be noted thatalo required to be noted thatalso required to be noted thatalso required to be nted thatalso required to be noted thatalso required to be noted thatalso requied to be noted thatalso required to be noted thatalso required to be noted thaalso required to be noted thatalso required to be noted thatalso required to bnoted thatalso required to be noted thatalso required to be noted thatalso reuired to be noted thatalso required to be noted thatalso required to be notedhatalso required to be noted thatalso required to be noted thatalso required tbe noted thatalso required to be noted thatalso required to be noted thatalsorequired to be noted thatalso required to be noted thatalso required to be notd thatalso required to be noted thatalso required to be noted thatalso requireto be noted thatalso required to be noted thatalso required to be noted thataso required to be noted thatalso required to be noted thatalso required to beoted thatalso required to be noted thatalsoty nce from the security personnel, eight security persons were held up out of which three are tilldate not traceable being wrongfully confined.

This Court issued notice to the respondents and on behalf of the StateMr. D.N.Patel, learned Addl. PP pointed out that in this case there is adispute of immovable property viz the land known as "Gopi Farm" and both theparties have filed complaints against each other. Not only that, civil suitsare pending before the trial Court.

On the last occasion, a grievance was made by Mr. Patel that even thecomplainant has not turned up to give his statement and though it was statedbefore the Court that the complainant will keep himself present before thepolice latest by 15th inst for recording his statement he presented before thepolice on 17th when his statement could be recorded. From his statement itappears that one R.J.Rajput @ Munnalal is looking after the New Royal Secur

However, there is no written agreement. On the record of the society, theywere making payment by showing that 3 or 4 persons were engaged by thesociety. It is further averred that on 29-5-95 said Munnalal visited theRelief Road office of the complainant and conveyed to one Bhikhabhai Vaghelathat about 13 to 14 persons had come on the land at about 9.00 a.m. alongwiththe police in private as well as Government vehicles and 8 to 9 persons havebeen taken away by the police. It is also clear that on the next day saidMunnalal stated to the said complainant that three persons are not traceableand they have been abducted. He assured the Police Officer that he willproduce before him said Munnalal of New Royal Security.

It is, therefore, clear that the petitioner has no knowledge but on the information received from others, he has made a grievance. On the recordof the society, it is indicated that only three to four persons are engaged re engagedre engagedre engagedre engagedre engagedre engagedre engagedre engagedre engagedre engagedre engagedre engagedre engagedre engagedre engagedre engagedre engagedre engagedre engagedre engagedre engagedre engagedre engagedre engagedre engagedre engagedre engagedre engagedre engagedre engagedre engagedre engagedre engagedre engagedre engagedre engagedre engagedre engagedre engagedre engagedre engagedre engagedre engagedre engagedre engagedre engagedre engagedre engagedre engagedre engagedre engaged re engagedre engagedre engagedre engagedre engagedre engagedre engagedre engagedre engagedre engagedre engagedre engagedre engagedre engagedre engagedre engagedre engagedre engagedre engagedre engagedre engagedre engagedre engagedre engagedre engagedre engagedre engagedre engagedre engagedre engagedre engagedre engagedre engagedre engagedre engagedre engagedre engagedre engagedre engagedre engagedre engaged rand being paid . One Kudebaba, who was working as a Security Person , hasstated before the police on 29-5-95 that over and above himself, Radheshyam,Sonaji, Vinod, Deelising and Munnalal were also working and that he had armedlicence with him. In the second shift Sonaji, Deelising and others areworking.In the morning shift, Radheshyam, Sonaji and Vinod had gone to themarket and at that time when the jeep came only three persons were on duty andthey were taken in the jeep car.Therefore, from the statement of Kudebaba itappears that there is no basis whatsoever in the say of the complainant thatat the time of the incident these three persons were working.

We asked Mr. Patel to see that the persons are tracede but Mr. Patelstated that the complainant has not even bothered to give the addresses ofthese persons or even the Security Person Munnalal under whom these personswho are alleged to have been abducted are working, nor any complaint has beenfiled so far. It is, therefore, clea, Additional Public Prosecutor there is property dispute and the parties havetaken recourse to the civil court and for the alleged act complaints filed bythe parties have been investigated by the police. In view of these facts, wedo not find any reason to issue Rule in this matter. Hence this petition isrejected. Notice discharged.

After the order is dictated, Mr.Barot has requested to hear him. Westated that he can give an application and the same will be considered but hestated that the Court must hear the lawyers. As we have heard him at length,no further audience is requirede to be given.

_____OOO_____

��_________ooooo________