SURENDRA SINGH PARMAR Vs. STATE OF MP

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER , who is father of Ajay Singh, has filed this habeas corpus petition on the ground that from 27.11.2006 the respondents No. 3 and 4 have illegally arrested and have illegally detained his son at the police station and have not produced him before any Magistrate. He apprehends dangers to the life of his son and has prayed for release of the son from the custody of the respondents by this habeas corpus petition.

(2.) GOVERNMENT has filed reply of the habeas corpus petition. It is stated on behalf of the respondents that there was a report on 14.10.2006 lodged by one Devendra Gupta against the unknown persons that when he was going on scooter, two unknown boys stopped his scooter and snatched his Nokia Mobile along with Rs. 250/- (Rupees two fifty). Crime was registered and matter was investigated and thereafter F.R. was submitted in that case. But, subsequently on IMEI search it was found that the IMEI number of said Nokia Mobile make was 358354001956886 and was being used by Ajay Parmar son of the petitioner. On 28.11.2006 in connection with the aforesaid investigation Surendra Singh Parmar gave statement to the police and as per this fact, his son is using the aforesaid Nokia Mobile. It is contended by the respondents that on the basis of aforesaid mobile, the police was searching Ajay Singh Parmar and police had also gone to the house of the petitioner, but he was not traced out and was not detained at police station.

(3.) WE have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents on record. The petitioner has filed this habeas corpus petition on 30.11.2006, but he has not stated the correct facts and has suppressed the material facts and made an allegation that the police is demanding Rs. 20,000/- (Rupees twenty thousand) for releasing Ajay Singh Parmar and has also made other allegation against police, but as stated in reply and admitted by Ajay Singh that he is aware about the use of mobile by his friend Suneel Singh Yadav, it appears that he suppressed the material facts while filing the habeas corpus petition. In view of the reply and presence of the Ajay Singh Parmar, who as in custody of the petitioner himself, it appears that this petition was filed with an oblique motive so that he may put pressure on the police, as has been submitted by the police. Petitioner could not show any evidence that his son Ajay Singh was under illegal detention by the police, in fact, police was searching him to known about mobile phone belongs to Devendra Gupta and to avoid that search, the aforesaid petition was filed on wrong facts.