Page 75 - GSTL_ 28th May 2020_Vol 36_Part 4

2020 ] PARESH NATHALAL CHAUHAN v. STATE OF GUJARAT 521
was granted and she returned after 15 minutes. It is recorded that on 14-10-2019,
the Investigating Officer Shri Rabari had presented himself and had taken charge
of the proceedings.
16.5 The proceedings of the other days are similar in nature and do not
reflect search of any kind having been carried out, but show that the officers have
remained in the house and have kept surveillance over the members of the
house. All that is recorded is when, where, why, at what time and for how long
any family member went out of the premises and that time and again the family
members were asked as to whether they had any information about the petition-
er. It also appears that every time when a family member left the premises,
he/she was required to inform the concerned officer the reason why he/she
wanted to go out and such member was required to take the permission of the
officer concerned. Several times, it has been recorded that liquor bottles were
found at the premises during the course of search and that the family members
were interrogated in respect of the same and as to whether they had a permit to
keep such liquor bottles and the fact regarding Anandnagar Police Station being
informed about the same and recording of an offence by the Police Station and
the action taken by it etc.
16.6 On 17-10-2019 at 11:10 am it is recorded that the officers who were
present at the premises at night are relieved and the daytime officer has taken
charge. It is further recorded that upon asking the family members of Pareshbhai
as to whether they had any news about him, they had said that they did not have
any news about him and upon the request of Pareshbhai’s family members, his
mother was permitted to go to the temple and his daughter was permitted to go
for her job. At 12:30 pm (presumably in the afternoon of 18-10-2019) it is recorded
that night time officer of 17-10-2019 has been relieved and the day time officer
has taken charge.
16.7 On a perusal of the contents of the panchnama, it is evident that
during the time the officers were present in the premises, the movements of the
family members were restricted and they were required to take permission of the
officers concerned if they had to go out of the house. The family members, in-
cluding female members, have been interrogated even during night hours, and
there is nothing in the panchnamas, to show the presence of any female officer
during the night time. Moreover, on each day, in the morning shift and night
shift, there were two different panchas from different localities residing in the
premises and it also appears that an SRP constable was also present throughout.
Thus, the family members of the petitioner were constrained to put up with dif-
ferent sets of strangers in their residential premises throughout the day and night
for eight days.
16.8 While it is an admitted position that the officers along with the
panchas and the SRP constable were inside the residential premises during the
course of the entire search, in the entire panchnama, there is no mention as to
what the officers and panchas and SRP constable did inside the residential prem-
ises of the petitioner throughout the day, except for having recorded the state-
ments of the family members of the petitioner at different times of the day. Noth-
ing is stated as regards where the members of the search party stayed during the
course of the day and where they slept at night.
16.9 It may be noted that on 18-10-2019, this court passed an order in
the following terms :

GST LAW TIMES  28th May 2020  75