ORDER

This is a petition under Art. 32 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner is a young man of 28 years of age who has completed his LL. B. and has enrolled himself as an advocate. The Senior Superientendent of Police, Ghaziabad, respondent No.4 called the petitioner in his office for making enquiries in some case. The petitioner on 7-1-1994 at about 10 Oclock appeared personally along with his brothers Sri Mangeram Choudhary, Nahar Singh Yadav, Harinder Singh Tewatia, Amar Singh and others before the respondent No. 4. Respondent No. 4 kept the petitioner in his custody. When the brother of the petitioner made enquiries about .the petitioner, he was told that the petitioner will be set free in the evening after making some enquiries in connection with a case.

2. On 7-1-1994 at about 12-55 p.m., the brother of the petitioner being apprehensive of the intentions of respondent No. 4, sent a telegram to the Chief Minister of U. P. apprehending his brothers implication in some criminal case and also further apprehending the petitioner being shot dead in fake encounter.

3. In spite of the frequent enquiries, the whereabouts of the petitioner could not be located. On the evening of 7-1-1994, it came to be known that petitioner is detained in illegal custody of 5th respondent, S.H.O , P. S. Mussorie.

4. On 8-1-1994, it was informed that the 5th respondent was keeping the petitioner in detention to make further enquiries in some case. So far as petitioner has not been produced before the concerned Magistrate. Instead the 5th respondent directed the relative of the petitioner to approach the 4th respondent S.S.P. Ghaziabad for release of the petitioner.

5. On 9-1-1994, in the evening when the brother of petitioner along with relatives went to P.S. Mussorie to enquire about the wellbeing of his brother, it was found that the petitioner had been taken to some undisclosed destination. Under these circumstances, the present petition has been preferred for the release of Joginder Kumar, the petitioner herein.

6. This Court on 11-1-1994 ordered notice to State of U.P. as well as S.S.P. Ghaziabad.

7. The said Senior Superintendent of Police along with petitioner appeared before this Court on 14-1-1994. According to him, the petitioner has been released. The question as to why the petitioner was detained for a period of five days, he would submit that the petitioner was not in detention at all. His help was taken for detecting some cases relating to abduction and the petitioner was helpful in co-operating with the police. Therefore, there is no question of detaining him. Though, as on today the relief in habeas corpus petition cannot be granted yet this Court cannot put an end to the writ petition on this score. Where was the need to detain the petitioner for five days; if really the petitioner was not in detention, why was not this Court informed are some questions which remain unanswered. If really, there was detention for five days, for what reason was he detained? These matters require to be enquiried into. Therefore, we direct the learned District Judge, Ghaziabad to make a detailed enquiry and submit his report within four weeks from the date of receipt of this order.

8. The horizon of human rights is expanding. At the same time, the crime rate is also increasing. Of late, this Court has been receiving complaints about violation of human rights because of indiscriminate arrests. How are we to strike a balance between the two?

9. A realistic approach should be made in this direction. The law of arrest is one of balancing individual rights, liberties and privileges, on the one hand, and individual duties, obligations and responsibilities on the other; of weighing and balancing the rights, liberties and privileges of the single individual and those of individuals collectively; of simply deciding what is wanted and where to put the weight and the emphasis; of deciding which comes first - the criminal or society, the law violator or the law ab