Sema Singh v. State Of Punjab
!"
! " !"
#$ " %$&'
#(
) %$&% #$ #%$)%
!" #$ %&'( Case heard via vide conferencing.
A detailed order has passed in these petitions on August 31, 2021, which reads as follows:- *
% "
+ , + &
-./ 00% 12 -3%- %&
% %
.- %..%
/4%.43%3
% -/ -520 6
, 0 %
8 %9 9
7
!
"
#
$ %
&&' &'&(
$$
#
) ()&)(*+)+! !((( * ( , " -
$
#
)+! ".
$
.
$ /
0 $
$$ .
#
)+! " $
. $
#
) ( ". $ 2
3 $ /
$
.
#
( * ( , "
4 $
.
. .
.
$ $ . .
.
.
$
$$ $
$
5
6 $ " # %78 "/
0# 7
$ #
4.
9
. . .
.
.
$ :
/
.
'! .
;
< ;6 4
$ .
#
)*2&3 "
/
.
; 6 $$ . .
$$
$ /
$
$
7 / '+'*&'&(= :
&
, ,; %9& %9
&, < =,
9
9 + 7 +9
9 ,% , , : , & %
& 9 , ,
0
= ,%
0 #7#
.-53%.4/- .3 54 # ( % $)%
% "
6
> 12 ?9 %
%9
: %9 ,& , , 0 % 0 #7#
.-53% .4/- .3 54
& 9 9"2 , % ,9 %
=
, @2= # :, ,9
-./>?00 2
& %,9 2=#
,%99 & $
,+&,/ +3 $ $, &, ,; ,
&,
, ,
, $,
A Eventually, pursuant thereto, an affidavit of the DSP, Talwandi Sabo, dated 10.10.2021, has been filed, which is ordered to be taken on record.
A perusal of the said reply shows that a supplementary statement is contended to have been made by the complainant, Surjit Singh, on April 30, 2021, to the effect that while he was going for work on a vehicle, a police party led by ASI Raghbir Singh, which was on patrolling duty, had met him and therefore he had joined the police party on his vehicle and he could not record that at the time the FIR as he was in a perplexed state of mind. However, it has also been stated in the affidavit that dereliction of duty was found by ASI Raghbir Singh and consequently, departmental proceedings have been initiated against him vide an order passed by the SSP, on 24.09.2021.
It has next been stated that the petitioners, upon having joined investigation on different dates, a recovery of weapons (dang/iron sabbal), has also been made from them.
As regards the antecedents of the petitioners it is stated that one other FIR each, stands registered against all of them, other than Kuldeep Singh.
It has also been stated that the petitioners possibly tried to abduct the complainant who had actually run away from the spot, with the petitioners following him and beating him up. However, with the query of this court as regards how a 'nonofficial' person was accompanying a police party not having been at least satisfactorily answered by the DSP (in the opinion of this court), and the recoveries already having been made from the petitioners (as contended by the DSP), with the ASI who was heading the policy party itself found to be prima facie at least guilty of negligence of duty etc., without making any comment on the actual merits of the case, 9%9
& % %
>$, ?
*.+4-%# $ !" ( &
B "
@ CD B EF