Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 1108 (PAT)

Umesh Singh v. State Of Bihar

2006-11-23

AJAY KUMAR TRIPATHI, NARAYAN ROY

body2006
Judgment 1. Heard counsel for the petitioner and JC to AAG 6 for the respondents, and considered the affidavits filed on behalf of the State. 2. This criminal writ application has been filed by one Umesh Singh, who happens to be the brother of Suresh Singh, for his production, who is alleged to have been taken away by the police personnel from his house on 23.8.2006. 3. Startling facts have come in the two affidavits filed on behalf of the State saying that the brother of the petitioner, who happens to be the truck owner, was made an accused alongwith the driver and the Khalasi of the truck in Jogbani Police Station Case No. 82 of 2006 dated 21.8.2006, as the consignments booked through the transporter did not reach its destination. The investigation proceeded and the case was supervised by the Superintendent of Police, Araria, who found, prima facie, involvement of the brother of the petitioner and driver and Khalasi of the truck, and as a sequel to that the investigating agency raided the house of the petitioner to apprehend his brother, who was accused in Jogbani Police Station Case No. 82 of 2006. He was not found available in the house. Accordingly, the police prayed before the court for issuance of processes etc. against him and also to declare him as an absconder. 4. It is submitted by counsel for the petitioner that a case was also lodged by the transporter in Chandauli District in the State of Uttar Pradesh by way of a complaint petition, but it is not stated as to whether cognizance was taken on the basis of the complaint or the same was referred to the police under sec. 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure to draw up a first information report. It is also submitted that again a complaint petition was filed before the D.G.P. by the wife of Suresh Singh alleging therein about kidnapping of her husband by the police. 5. Prima facie, it appears from the materials on record and the counter affidavits filed on behalf of the State the consignments, somehow or the other, were misappropriated and involvement of the owner of the truck alongwith driver and Khalasi was suspected, for which the police is in search of the brother of the petitioner. 6. 5. Prima facie, it appears from the materials on record and the counter affidavits filed on behalf of the State the consignments, somehow or the other, were misappropriated and involvement of the owner of the truck alongwith driver and Khalasi was suspected, for which the police is in search of the brother of the petitioner. 6. It is not known to the Court as to why on the alleged date of raid, i.e. 23.8.2006, a case was not lodged either by the petitioner or by the wife of the alleged kidnapped person either before the police or before the competent court. 7. It appears from the materials on record that the present habeas corpus application has been filed by way of camouflage to suppress the real facts. 8. For the reasons aforementioned and in view of the circumstances, noticed above, no case has been made out for issuance of a writ of habeas corpus. 9. This writ application is, accordingly, dismissed.