CRWP-9145-2026 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH (120) CRWP-9145-2026 Date of Decision:-30.07.2026 SUKHWINDER ……Petitioner Versus STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS. ……Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK JAIN **** Present: None for the petitioner. **** ALOK JAIN, J. (Oral) 1. The lawyers are abstaining from work. 2. The instant petition has been preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ in the nature of Habeas Corpus for seeking appointment of Warrant Officer and to release the detenues mentioned in Para No.10 of the writ petition, who have been alleged to be in the illegal custody of respondents No. 6 to 11. 3. Upon perusal of paper-book, it appears that the detenues are the co-workers of the petitioner, who are allegedly detained by the private respondents, to make them work forcibly without wages. Apparently, the present case is a violation of provisions contained in Bonded Labour System (Abolition) Act, 1976. Therefore, action is required to be taken in accordance with law. DEEPAK PATWAL 2026.07.30 15:24 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRWP-9145-2026 (O&M) 2 4. Issue notice of motion. 5. Shamsher, ASI, who is also present in Court accepts notice on behalf of respondent-State. 6. Since nobody represented the petitioner due to ongoing strike, however this Court has considered the present petition due to the prayer made in the present petition and the facts and circumstances of this case. 7. Division Bench of this Court in LPA No.32 of 2013, titled 'Murti versus The State of Punjab and others', held the relevant part is reproduced as under:- “It may be mentioned here that the allegations of the appellant in the writ petition are that the alleged detenues mentioned in para No.3 of the writ petition who are 1 of 2 working as labourers at the brick kiln of respondent Nos.4 & 5 are being kept as bonded labours. There can indeed be no doubt that if a labourer has been detained as bonded labour, it amounts to an offence under Sections 16 & 17 of the Bonded Labour (Abolition) Act, 1976. We, however, clarify that the aforesaid observation does not mean that the allegations levelled by the appellant have been accepted. Suffice it to observe that under the Act, the District Magistrate is under statutory obligation to hold a fact finding enquiry as and when a complaint alleging violation of the provisions of Bonded Labour (Abolition) Act, 1976 is received. Since the appellant in the instant case has specifically averred that the persons mentioned in para No.3 of the writ petition have been detained as bonded labourers, we allow this appeal and set aside/modify the order dated 9.1.2013 passed by the learned Single Judge to the extent that the petitioner's writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the District Magistrate, Sangrur, to treat this petition as a complaint under the 1976 DEEPAK PATWAL 2026.07.30 15:24 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRWP-9145-2026 (O&M) 3 Act and take immediate action in accordance with law, within a period of one week from the date of receiving a certified copy of this order alongwith a copy of the writ petition. Accordingly, this Criminal Writ Petition is disposed of with a direction to District Magistrate, Hisar, to treat this petition as a complaint under the Bonded Labour System (Abolition) Act, 1976 and take immediate action in accordance with law, within a period of one week from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order alongwith a copy of the writ petition.” 8. Thus, keeping in view the facts of the case as narrated in the present petition and the decision of Hon’ble Division Bench in Murti’s case (supra), the present Criminal Writ Petition is hereby disposed of with a direction to respondent No.2-Deputy Commissioner-cum-District Magistrate, Hisar to treat this petition as a complaint under the Bonded Labour System (Abolition) Act, 1976 and take immediate action in accordance with law, within a period of one week from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order along with a copy of the writ petition. (ALOK JAIN) JUDGE July 30, 2026. Deepak Patwal Whether speaking/reasoned:- Yes/No Whether Reportable:- Yes/No DEEPAK PATWAL 2026.07.30 15:24 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document