SULOCHAM BAI Vs. STATE OF MP

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner has preferred this writ petition for issue of a writ of habeas corpus directing the respondents to produce her father-in-law, Kanchhedi Lal.

(2.) SHORN of unnecessary details the requisite facts are that the petitioner is the daughter-in-law of the missing person, Kanchhedi Lal, who was working in khamariya Factory. On 26-6-2003 said Kanchhedi Lal left his home for the place of work but thereafter he did not return and, therefore, an information in this regard was given at the Police Station, Ranjhi. On the aforesaid basis, a case being Case No. 50/03 was registered and investigation was commenced. But kanchhedi Lal has not yet been traced out. Police Station, Ranjhi vide letter dated 18-8-2004 (Annexure-P-1) informed that the search in respect of said kanchhedi Lal is in progress but so far no positive information has been received in that regard. It is pleaded that Pramod Burman, the husband of the petitioner, and son of the missing person, is suffering from mental disease. It is also putforth that notice in respect of aforesaid missing person was also published in the newspaper but no fruitful result has ensued. It is asserted that the petitioner is a poor labourer and is required to look after her mentally retarded husband and her children. Despite her visit to the Police Station and Khamariya Factory with great difficulties, nothing has been done in that regard. It is asseverated that the wife of the missing person and the mother-in-law of the petitioner has already died. It is urged that the investigating agency is not taking action and further not supplying any information on one pretext or the other.

(3.) MR. Ashok Agrawal, learned Government Advocate has raised a preliminary objection that the writ of habeas corpus is not maintainable as there is no allegation that the father-in-law of the petitioner has been detained in any wrongful confinement by any one.