Varinder Singh Alias Abu v. State Of Punjab And Another

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH CRM-M-64434-2024 Date of Decision: 19.12.2024 VARINDER SINGH ALIAS ABU ... PETITIONER VS.

STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANOTHER .. RESPONDENTS CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP CHITKARA

Present:

Ms. Arshdeep Kaur, Advocate for Mr. H.S.Sandhu, Advocate, for the petitioner. Ms. Swati Batra, DAG, Punjab.

****** ANOOP CHITKARA , J.(ORAL) Seeking issuance of directions to the official respondents to transfer the convict-petitioner, who is presently confined in District Jail, Bathinda to Central Jail Goindwal, District Jail Patti, District Tarn Taran. 2.

Notices are served upon the official respondents through the State's counsel.

3.

At this stage, counsel for the petitioner submits that the authorities are intentionally not producing the inmates before the Court which is delaying the trial. He further submits that he would be contended and satisfied if representation dated 09.12.2024 (Annexure P-3) is decided in a time bound manner. 4.

Given the nature of the order that this Court proposes to pass, neither the response of official respondents nor the issuance of notices to the private respondents is required.

5.

Without entering into the veracity of allegations, let the representation dated 09.12.2024 (Annexure P-3) be decided by the concerned authority DGP (Prison) himself/herself or delegating the same to any other officer having rank of IPS by 31.12.2024. It is clarified that such order must be a reasoned order, and the same be communicated to the representationist as well as his counsel without delay through email and the petitioners' counsel would give his e-mail id to the State counsel today itself.

6.

Liberty reserved to the petitioners to file fresh petition or to take other legal remedies in accordance with the law.

7.

It is clarified that there is no adjudication on merits. It is further clarified that this order shall not come in the way if the interrogation of the petitioners are required in any cognizable case.

8.

There would be no need for a certified copy of this order, and any Advocate for the Petitioner and State can download this order and other relevant particulars from the official web page of this court and attest it to be a true copy. The concerned officer can also verify its authenticity and may download and use the downloaded copy for immediate use.

9.

Petition is allowed with the aforesaid observation. All pending applications, if any, stand disposed.

19.12.2024 (ANOOP CHITKARA ) smriti JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether Reportable : Yes/No SMRITI 2024.12.21 11:02 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment