ORDER : B.P. Singh, J. In this writ petition the petitioner makes a grievance that her husband has been the victim of custodial death. According to her the Army authorities apprehended him and later handed over his dead body to the family. Her allegation is that her husband was done to death by the Army authorities. 2. This is controverted by the Union of India and it is submitted before us that on the basis of hard intelligence the deceased was questioned by the Army authorities and he volunteered to show them the hideout of a militant organisation. He took the Army personnel to the said hideout and while he was trying to enter the premises a loud explosion took place in which he was severely injured and died instantaneously, whereas three other Army personnel were injured. Their medical reports have been produced before us. It is, therefore, their case that this was not a case of custodial death, and at best was a case of death caused by an accident. On our request the UOI has also produced before us the relevant file which has dealt with the complaint of the petitioner made to the Prime Minister of India and the various nothings at different levels made by the concerned authorities all pointing to the conclusion reached by the UOI that this was a case of accidental death. 3. It also appears from the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the UOI that a first information report was lodged promptly. In normal course the case must have been investigated by the police though we do not have the details thereof. From the rejoinder of the petitioner also it appears that some proceedings were taken before the Tehsildar Magistrate 1st Class Pampore and her grievance is that a report was submitted without proper investigation and the case was sought to be closed. We do not have the necessary details about the investigation that may have been carried out by the police and the findings recorded by the Investigating Agency pursuant to the first information report lodged with the police. 4. At an earlier stage in the writ petition the State of Jammu & Kashmir was represented before us and after seeking several adjournments the counsel for the State of Jammu & Kashmir has disappeared from the scene. 4. At an earlier stage in the writ petition the State of Jammu & Kashmir was represented before us and after seeking several adjournments the counsel for the State of Jammu & Kashmir has disappeared from the scene. We are, therefore, in the dark as to what investigation was done pursuant to the first information report lodged in connection with the incident in question. 5. Since the State of Jammu & Kashmir is not represented before us, we are constrained to call upon the Chief Secretary of the State of Jammu & Kashmir to pass appropriate directions and take necessary steps so that the State is represented before us in this writ petition and all necessary records concerning the case, including the record of investigation, is produced before us on or before 5th May, 2006 failing which we direct the Chief Secretary of the State of Jammu & Kashmir to be personally present on 11th May, 2006 with all necessary records pertaining to this case. Let this order be communicated to the Chief Secretary of the State of Jammu & Kashmir forthwith by the Registrar General of this Court by fax message as well as by courier so that the State of Jammu & Kashmir is able to take necessary steps, as directed by us today. 6. Put up this matter on 11th May, 2006.