MAN SINGH Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) We have heard Sri D.S. Srivastava, counsel for the petitioner and Sri Arvind Tripathi, A.G.A. for respondents No. 1, 2 and 3. Sri G.S. Hajela counsel for C.B.I. has also been heard.

(2.) The petitioner Man Singh has filed this habeas corpus petition through his father Ram Lakhan. The prayer made is for a direction to the respondents to produce the petitioner Man Singh before this Court and to set him free from their illegal custody. Respondenf No. 3 is Station House Officer, Police Station Karvi District Chitrakoot who has been impleaded by name also as respondent No. 4. The respondent No. 5 is Constable Rajendra Shukla posted at Police Station Karvi aforesaid and respondent No. 6 is one Chandra Prakash Dwivedi son of Babu Lal Dwivedi. Respondent No. l is State of U.P. whereas respondent No. 2 is Superintendent of Police of District Chitrakcot.

(3.) In the writ petition serious allegatons have been made against respondents No. 3 to 6 to the effect that on 6.2.2005 at about 3 P.M. the respondents No. 5 and 6 came to the house of the petitioner and asked his father (Ram Lakhan) that respondent No. 4 needed his vehicle-Bolero bearing registration No. UP-96 6720 for two days for visiting Allahabad in an invitation. As the driver of the vehicle was not available and the petitioner was also not there, Ram Lakhan-father of the petitioner told respondents No. 5 and 6 that as soon as one e f them (either the driver or the petitioner) was available, the vehicle would be sent., Then respondent No. 5 told the father of the petitioner that his ( petitioner's) brother Budh Vilas was sitting at Bedipuliya who could carry the vehicle. The petitioners father agreed. The respondents No. 5 and 6 then carried the aforesaid vehicle through Budh Vilas. When Budh Vilas reached the Police Station before the Respondent No. 4, the latter asked the former to leave the vehicle alongvvith its- original papers. Budh Vilas left the papers and vehicle at Police Station Kotwali, Karvi and returned to his village. The allegations proceeded that after two days, i.e., on 8.2.2005, at about 10 A.M., the respondents No. 5 and 6 again came to the house of the petitioner and informed his father that his vehicle had returned at the Police Station and, therefore, he should depute his son Man Singh (petitioner) to take back the vehicle. They also informed the father of the petitioner that he (Man Singh) was also required to give statement in respect of a vehicle Marshal bearing registration No. U.P.-96/3096 belonging to one Rajju, uncle of the petitioner. Thereafter, the petitioner 'went with them On motorcycle bearing No. U.P. 96-7151 but he did not return to his village thereafter. His father went to the Police Station on 9.2.2005 and inquired the whereabouts of his son from respondent No. 4. Surprisingly, however, respondent No. 4 informed the petitioner's fattier that he (petitioner) did not come to him and his vehicle was there in Kotwali. The Petitioner Man Singh was said to be missing since then and in spite of efforts, he could not be traced out. The father of the petitioner also contacted respondents No. 5 and 6 about his son Man Singh (petitioner) but they told him that they had handed over Man Singh to respondent No. 4 whereafter they had no concern with him. According to them, they had only complied with the order of respondent No. 4. These material allegations in the Writ Petition were contained in paragraphs No. 6 to 11 of the Writ Petition. It is significant to note that the contents of paragraphs 1 to 11 (as also of some other paragraphs not relevant to be stated here) have been verified through affidavit sworn on 19.4.2005 on the basis of personal knowledge by the leponent Ram Lakhan-father of the petitioner Man Singh. The said affidavit has been filed by Ram Lakhan in support of the writ petition.