ORDER Mathur, C.J. -- 1. This is a habeas corpus petition filed by Jagatdhari for missing of his son-in-law Motiram S/o Shri Ramlal. It is alleged that on 8.1.1994 the respondents No.2 and 3 along-with two constables and two businessmen came to village of the petitioner and called his son-in-law Motiram and took him in a jeep to Lakhanpur Police Station. Thereafter, the petitioner's son Puneshwar went to Police Station Lakhanpur to meet Motiram and to give him food and clothes, but he did not see Motiram there. The respondent No.4, Asstt. Sub-Inspector, informed him that Motiram has been taken to Ambikapur for a round and then on 10.1.1994 Puneshwar, son of the petitioner, again went to Lakhanpur Police Station but the respondent No.4. D.K. Sharma told him that Motiram had been released on 9.1.1994. Motiram did not reach home nor he was seen anywhere by the petitioner or his relatives. Then again on 11.1.1994, the petitioner son Puneshwar went to Police Station Lakhanpur and met Shri D.K. Sharma, Assitt. Sub-Inspector, who informed him that Motiram left by Ravindra Bus Service on Sunday itself. It is alleged that on 12.1.1994 Smt. Anuradha Shankar Sinha, Shri Upadhyaya, Inspector and two Constable of Police came to the house of the petitioner and directed the petitioner, his brother Palakdhari. his son Puneshwar, daughter Munnibai w/o Motiram to make a report in the Police Station Lakhanpur that Motiram was missing. It is also alleged that the petitioner and members of the family told the police party that they would not lodge a report of missing as they had taken Motiram with them. It is alleged that Smt. Anuradha Shankar Sinha asked the petitioner's daughter Munnibai w/o Motiram that she would direct the police personnel to make payment to her and had pressed her to make a report about missing of her husband Motiram. It is alleged that an application under Section 437 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was moved before the Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Ambikapur. The said bail application was rejected by the Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Ambikapur on the ground that Motiram was taken for interrogation and thereafter he had been released. Since Motiram did not return home, the petitioner protested to S.P. Sarguja and to various authorities but without any result. The said bail application was rejected by the Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Ambikapur on the ground that Motiram was taken for interrogation and thereafter he had been released. Since Motiram did not return home, the petitioner protested to S.P. Sarguja and to various authorities but without any result. Thereafter, the matter was also published in the news paper, but without any avail, and as such, the present writ of habeas corpus petition was filed by the petitioner. 2. A reply was filed by the respondents and they admitted that Motiram was called at the police Station for investigation, but he was not arrested and no papers were prepared. Shri Pawan Kumar Jain, Superintendent of Police, Ambikapur, filed an affidavit that he made enquiry from the Police Personnel viz. Shri N.P. Upadhyaya, S.I., Shri D.K. Sharma, A.S.I. and Shri Meghnalh, Constable, who were posted at Police Station Lakhanpur. He admitted that there was no entry relating to Motiram in Rojllamcha of 8.1.1994 and 9.1.1994. He admitted that Motiram was called for questioning on 8.1.1994 and he was allowed to go on 9.1.1994. He also submitted that no further information regarding whereabouts of Motiram is available. However, application of missing person case is still pending and is under investigation. It is pointed out in the reply that Motiram had sent a Money order of Rs. 300/- from Varanasi Nai Bazar to his wife Smt. Munnibai. It is also pointed out in the reply that it is learnt that Motiram who was working as Driver, had sent Rs. 400/- to his father-in-law Jagatdhari and the same was received by the petitioner on 15.3.1994. Thereafter, when the matter came up before this Court, the Court, was not satisfied with the affidavit filed by the Superintendent of Police and the return filed by the respondents. On several occasions, the Court directed the Police to make an extensive search and produce Motiram, but the Police failed to produce Motiram in person. Then on 23.7.1996 this Court directed the District Judge, Ambikapur to make enquiry in the matter and send a report. The District Judges, Ambikapur, sent a detailed report and in that report, we found that Motiram has not been found alive. Then on 23.7.1996 this Court directed the District Judge, Ambikapur to make enquiry in the matter and send a report. The District Judges, Ambikapur, sent a detailed report and in that report, we found that Motiram has not been found alive. Thereafter, on receipt of the report of the District Judge, it was felt that it is the responsibility of the Police to account for a person who was called by them and since then he has not been found alive. Then it was directed that the matter may be inquired into by the C.I.D. not below the rank of Superintendent of Police. The Director General of Police, Bhopal directed the Assistant Inspector General of Police (Investigation) to investigats and find out the where-about of Motiram. A detailed investigation was made and report was forwarded to this Court, therein it is admitted that Motiram was called on to the Police Station, Lakhanpur. There is no entry to this affect in any Rojnamcha or other Police record, nor is there any entry of his release. However, he observed that there is no evidence that any accident has happened with Motiram. He concluded that no evidence has come to his notice by which it can be inferred that any accident has happened with Motiram at the Police Station, Lakhanpur. But he also categorically held that the who is action at Police Station, Lakhanpur was illegal. He concluded that it is not possible to reach to any conclusion whether Motiram is alive or dead. From the reports of Assistant Inspector General of Police (Investigation) and also the District Judge, it is established beyond doubt that Motiram was called at Police Station Lakhanpur on 8.1.1994 and it is also admitted that since then Motiram has not been found alive or dead. It is also found by the A.I.S.P. (Investigation) that the Police personnel at the relevant time, acted illegally. From these premises, it can be inferred that calling of Motiram at Police Station Lakhanpur was illegal as it has been no where recorded in Rojnamcha. It is also found by the A.I.S.P. (Investigation) that the Police personnel at the relevant time, acted illegally. From these premises, it can be inferred that calling of Motiram at Police Station Lakhanpur was illegal as it has been no where recorded in Rojnamcha. The factum of calling Motiram at the Police Station on 8.1.1994 and 9.1.1994 and since then he has not been alive, coupled with fact that the Police Party went to the house of Motiram and persuaded his wife to file a report of missing person and then an attempt was made to create an evidence that two money orders were sent by Motiram from Varanasi to the petitioner and his wife Munnibai, these circumstances only indicate towards suspicion of the whole story put forth by the Police Officers to some how show that he was alive after release from Police Station. 3. It is not a common thing in these days that there are number of custodial deaths and law has been amended to provide a strong punishment for such custodial death. It is also not uncommon that poor people are called at the Police Station and they are mal-treated and causalities had happened and their bodies are also disposed of. From the record which has been produced before us, we cannot infer whether Motiram is dead or alive or whether he died in the custody of Police. But it is an admitted fact that he was called at the Police Station Lakhanpur on 8.1.1994 and since then he has not been found alive nor had he reported to the members of his family and nor heard alive in the locality, therefore, it becomes responsibility of the State to account for when the person has been illegally detained by the Police from 8.1.1994 to 9.1.1994. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that since Motiram was called by the Police and he has not been heard alive; therefore, either the police should produce Motiram or his family be adequately compensated for absence of Motiram. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that since Motiram was called by the Police and he has not been heard alive; therefore, either the police should produce Motiram or his family be adequately compensated for absence of Motiram. The learned counsel has invited our attention to the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in Inder Singh v. State of Punjab ( AIR 1995 SC 312 & 1949), and in that case, there was a complaint of abduction of seven persons by senior police officers by using official machinery and on enquiry by D.I.G. (Crimes), it was found that these seven persons were abducted by the Police Officials and in that case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court directed the C.B.I. enquiry. After considering the report of C.B.1. enquiry, it was directed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court to the State of Punjab to pay to the legal representatives of each of the said seven persons an amount of Rs. 1,50 Lakhs. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner has also invited our attention to the decision of Guhati High Court reported in Smt. Luithikla v. Risheana Keishing and others AIR 1989 NOC 182 and in that case also, the petitioner's husband was apprehended by Army and his where-abouts was not known about 5 years and failure on the part of the Union of India and Officials to produce the petitioner's husband the Court awarded a sum of Rs. 1 lakh to the petitioner by following the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in Sebastian M. Hongray v. Union of India AIR 1984 SC 571 . Our attention was also invited to the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in Subastian M. Hongray v. Union of India AIR 1984 SC 1026 and in that case, certain persons i.e. C. Demial and C. Paul were directed by a writ of habeas corpus to be produced by the Army regiment and their officials but they could not be produced though they were said to have been taken by the official of the Regiment and, therefore, Hon'ble Supreme Court directed the respondents/authorities to conduct a search but nothing could be found and the C.B.1. was also directed to locate the aforesaid two persons; but without any result, Looking to the fact that they were found to be unlawfully detained, Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that for mental tortures caused to the wife of both the persons, they directed that an exemplary cost should be awarded and the respondents were directed to pay a sum of Rs. 1 lakh each to the wives of both these missing persons. 6. In the present case also, a direction was given by this Court to the respondents to produce Motiram but the Police Officials failed to produce him and it is admitted fact that he was called at the Police Station for investigation and thereafter he was not heard alive and that caused a definite mental agony to his father-in-law and his wife. For that, the only remedy is to provide adequate compensation to the wife of the missing Motiram. In these circumstances, we direct a sum of Rs. 50,000/- should be given to wife of Motiram as a compensation and the State Government shall initiate a departmental enquiry against the concerned officials who were posted there at the relevant time as they had illegally detained Motiram at Police Station Lakhanpur. This petition is allowed accordingly. The amount of security, if any, shall be refunded to the petitioner.