INDRASINGH DARIYAVSINGH TANVAR Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is filed praying for a writ of habeas corpus directing respondent nos.2 and 3, who are Police Authorities, to produce before the Court the corpus - Jaypal Singh Tanvar, who is in illegal and unlawful custody of respondent nos.4 and 5.

(2.) Endorsement on the cause list shows that respondent nos.4 to 6 are served by direct service. Respondent nos.1 to 3 are State and Police Authorities. Respondent nos.4 and 5 are persons, who were working as masons alongwith the son and son-in-law of the petitioner. Respondent no.6 is the wife of the corpus - Jaypal Singh Tanvar. Since sister of the corpus as also the corpus and respondent nos.4 and 5 were basically labourers working as masons, they used to go to different places for their livelihood. They also hail from native State of the petitioner i.e. Madhya Pradesh, may be they are staying in adjoining villages.

(3.) As per the missing complaint No.125/2021 dtd. 3/10/2021 registered with Pandesara Police Station, it discloses that the corpus - Jaypal Singh Tanvar went missing on 30/9/2021 at about 8:30 a.m. in the morning. The declarant of that missing complaint happens to be the real brother-in-law of the corpus, who is staying just opposite the house of the corpus. Pursuant to the filing of the aforesaid missing complaint, Police Authority swung into action and they started inquiring into it, as per the Standard Operating Procedure, for the missing person. However, petitioner, father of the corpus, though staying at Surat with his daughter, did not file any missing report. However, after about nearly a month, he addressed one communication dtd. 26/10/2021 to Commissioner of Police, Surat showing as suspect / accused - no one for the alleged offence under Ss. 363 and 365 of the Indian Penal Code. In the said communication, he has complained about local police not doing anything despite the missing complaint given. The said application is at page 18 of the compilation. It is stated in that complaint that his daughter called him on 1/10/2021 and informed that respondent no.6 - wife of the corpus reported that corpus has not returned back after he went to work a day before. Though, it is asserted in the said application that, on 1/10/2021 his son-in-law went to Pandesara Police Station for registering missing complaint but Officer present in the Police Station did not record the same and did not do anything. Therefore, he himself inquired into the missing of his son but he could not find him out. It is further complained that despite repeated visits to the Police Station, only on 3/10/2021 at about 3:30 p.m. missing complaint was registered doing nothing till then. As per the case of the petitioner, he came to Surat on 2/10/2021. It is further disclosed in the aforesaid application that mobile phone, which was being used by the corpus, was not in working condition as two days prior to the corpus went missing, it was not working as it fell down, and therefore, mobile of the corpus was at home. It is further asserted in it that based on such mobile also, Police did not attempt to get phone records and inquire into the said mobile.