SANJEEV KUMAR Vs. STATE OF H.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AT the oral request of the learned counsel for the petitioner, Superintendent of Police, Central Bureau of Investigation, Shimla is arrayed as party -respondent. Mr. Ashok Sharma, learned ASGI, appears and waives service of notice on behalf of the said respondent. The Registry is directed to carry out necessary correction in the memo of parties.

(2.) THE writ petitioner is father of one Indu Bala, who is averred to have completed 18 years of age on 6.9.2014. She is averred to have joined Computer Centre owned by respondent No. 15 for the last five months and after completion of her computer classes, she is averred to have joined tailoring classes. Besides, the computer classes, she is averred to have joined a beautician course in Tehsil Bangana, two kilometers away from her native village. The father of Indu Bala was taken to carry in his car his daughter daily in the morning to the Computer Centre at 9.00 a.m. and after completion of tailoring classes, carry her back in his private car. However, on the fateful day on 1.11.2014, when the petitioner proceeded to the institution where his daughter was being imparted training in tailoring, he was apprised that she had not come to receive training in tailoring which led the petitioner to proceed to the Computer Centre, manned by respondent No. 15, who apprised the petitioner that she had left the Computer Centre at about 10.30 a.m. Since the daughter of the petitioner was found missing both from the Tailoring Institute as well as from Computer Centre, a missing report was lodged by the petitioner at Police Station, Bangana. However, the whereabouts of the daughter of the petitioner having remained unearthed, constrained the petitioner to institute the instant writ petition with a direction to the respondent -State to produce Indu Bala in Court. The petitioner avers that he suspected that the respondent No. 7 Manjeet Kumar, aged about 19 years, has coaxed his daughter in his company and unlawfully detained her alongwith respondents No. 8 to 15. The petitioner also avers that respondent No. 7 in connivance with respondents No. 8 to 15, has facilitated the unlawful joining of his daughter in his company. Since a petition for habeas corpus is an ultra sensitive impinging upon the liberty of an individual, as such, bearing in mind its ultra sensitivity and also the prized asset of liberty of an individual, this Court was constrained to on 11.12.2014 direct respondent No. 3 to produce Indu Bala by 12.12.2014 at 10.00 a.m. On 12.12.2014, the respondent No. 3 omitted to produce Indu Bala in Court. Therefore, a direction was rendered on 12.12.2014 to respondent No. 2 to produce the girl in Court on 17.12.2014. On that day a detailed status report was filed by respondent No. 2, whose perusal constrained this Court to record that prima facie concerted efforts are being made by respondents aforesaid to produce Indu Bala in Court, nonetheless, respondent No. 3 Superintendent of Police was directed to produce the girl on 19.12.2014. She in compliance with the directions rendered by this Court to produce her remained un -produced at the instance of respondent No. 3. However, a status report has been filed by respondent No. 3, elucidating therein the measures and efforts made by them to locate and trace Indu Bala and then produce her in Court. However, without decommending the efforts made by respondent No. 3, nonetheless it appears that for want of state of art wherewithals besides for want of state of art apparatus with respondent No. 3, has defacilitated respondent No. 3 to locate and trace Indu Bala. The constraints of wherewithals as well as state of art apparatus with respondent No. 3 does hence affect as well as trammel respondent No. 3 to trace and locate her. Hence, without construing that there has been any ineptitude or lack of concert on the part of respondent No. 3 to locate the whereabouts of Indu Bala, this Court merely for the added leverage which the Central Bureau of Investigation has with it, it being a specialized agency having a nation wide rallying to hence carry out a nation wide effort to locate and trace Indu Bala. Besides with its being empowered with state of art apparatus and state of art wherewithals with which the respondent No. 3 is neither empowered with nor possessed hence, constraining its effort to locate Indu Bala. Consequently, this Court deems it fit, just and proper especially in the interest of justice to while treating it as a singular case to direct that the investigation be henceforth to locate missing Indu Bala be carried out by Superintendent of Police, Central Bureau of Investigation, Shimla. The exceptionality ingrained in the instant case which prods it to handover henceforth investigation to the Central Bureau of Investigation is that it is an ultra sensitive matter pertaining to the liberty of an individual. Therefore, given the ultra sensitivity aforesaid as also for facilitating justice to the parties besides for enforcing the direction initially rendered for production of Indu Bala before the Court, this Court with the exceptionality of the apparatus and wherewithals with the Central Bureau of Investigation does feel constrained to render the aforesaid directions to the Superintendent of Police, Central Bureau of Investigation, Shimla. For taking the above view, this Court is supported by the judgments reported in State of West Bengal and others vs. Committee for Protection of Democratic Rights, West Bengal and others : (2010) 3 SCC 571, Central Bureau of Investigation through S.P. Jaipur vs. State of Rajasthan and another, : (2001) 3 SCC 333.