SAROJ KUMAR Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner for issuance of a writ in the nature of Habeas Corpus commanding the respondents authorities to recover the daughter-in-law and infant grandson of the petitioner from the illegal custody of respondent nos. 5 to 9.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that respondent no. 10 is the husband of the victim lady who is adopted son of the petitioner and his biological father is Sunil Thakur, full brother of the petitioner. He contended that the wife of respondent No. 10 went together with his agnates, respondent nos. 5 to 9 along with her 15 months old child on 6/8/2021. At that time he was not at his home. When he came back, he came to know that the respondent nos. 5 to 9 have conspired together and took away his daughter-in-law and grandson. He stated that the F.I.R. was registered with the police in this regard vide Sahebganj P.S. Case No. 405 of 2021 on 1/9/2021 under Sec. 365 of the Indian Penal Code. He contended that the police are not conducting the investigation in proper manner and the delay caused in investigation of the case has compelled him to seek remedy before this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

(3.) Mr. Bishwa Bibhuti Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the State submitted that the writ petition is totally misconceived. He contended that for an alleged occurrence which took place on 6/8/2021 an F.I.R. was registered on 1/9/2021. The delay of 25 days caused in submitting the written report has not been properly explained. The petitioner has stated in his written report that he informed the police that the delay in reporting the matter to the police was caused as he himself was trying to know the whereabouts of his missing daughter-in-law and grandson. He contended that the tenor of the F.I.R. itself would show that the alleged victim had voluntarily accompanied the accused persons who all are petitioner's agnates. He contended that even though the police have not submitted their report under Sec. 173(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the petitioner has rushed to this Court claiming that investigation is not being done in a proper manner.