PINKI KUMARI Vs. THE STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner lodged First Information Report, at Laukahi Police Station, alleging inter alia, that her husband, Jai Prakash Yadav, had been abducted, on 30.08.2013, at about 2.00 PM, from local Community Hall by the persons named in the First Information Report, because there had been a dispute over land between the family of the informant and the family of the accused. Based on the First Information Report so lodged, Laukahi Police Station Case No. 92 of 2013, under Sections 363/364/34 of the Indian Penal Code, was registered against those, who were named by the informant as abductors.

(2.) Thereafter, alleging to the effect, inter alia, that her abducted husband, had not been recovered and handed over by the police to the petitioner, the petitioner came to this Court with the present application, made under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking issuance of, inter alia, a writ in the nature of habeas corpus commanding respondent No. 3, namely, Superintendent of Police, Madhubani, to produce the victim.

(3.) By filing counter affidavit, respondents have submitted that upon conducting investigation, the case has been found to be true against the accused named in the First Information Report and that, during investigation, incriminating materials had also been found against some persons, who had not been named in the First Information Report. In the counter affidavit, the respondents have also averred that according to the confessional statements of two accused, who had abducted the victim and kept him in their house for three/four days, they had handed over the victim to Radhye Sah and Pawan Sah and pursuant to the information so received from the confessional statements of the two accused aforementioned, a hectic search is being made with all sincerity, but police have not been succeeded in apprehending Radhye Sah and Pawan Sah and, due to their inability to do so, they have already announced an award of Rs.50,000/- each to one who helps the police in apprehending any of the said two accused. In the counter affidavit, it has been further averred that on having completed investigation, charge sheet has also been filed against accused some of the persons keeping the investigation pending against remaining accused.