ORDER 1. This writ petition has been preferred seeking a writ of habeas corpus for production of Sri Rufee Khan, who is son of the present Petitioner, from the custody of the Respondents, particularly Respondent No. 3. 2. We have heard learned Counsels for both the sides at length. It is submitted by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner that Respondent No. 3 has taken away his son on 12th July, 2009 and thereafter, his son has not returned to the house. It has also been submitted by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner that upon searching his son, the Petitioner came to know through newspaper that the police has arrested his son. Newspaper in which news of his son was published along with the photograph states that his son was arrested by police of Namkum Police from Firayalal Chowk at Ranchi, alleging him to have been involved in Dhanuka murder case and Namkum Police Station is not giving any detail or whereabout of his son and, thereafter, the present petition has been preferred for production of his son, namely, Rufee Khan, in the Court from the illegal custody of the Respondents, especially Respondent No. 3. 3. We have heard at length learned Counsel for the Respondents, who has submitted that detail counter-affidavits have been filed by the Respondents and it has been stated that the police has never arrested Rufee Khan, who is son of the present Petitioner, much less from Firayalal (Albert Ekka Chowk) at Ranchi on 12th July, 2009. as alleged by the Petitioner. It has further been submitted by the learned Counsel, appearing on behalf of the Respondents, that the son of the present Petitioner i.e. Rufee Khan is involved in more than one cases. The police is searching Rufee Khan at various addresses, but, said Rufee Khan is not available to the police. When the police has asked his father i.e. the present Petitioner, father of Rufee Khan has refused to give any information. On the contrary, the present Petitioner has stated in writing that he has no relations with his son Rufee Khan. The present Petitioner has tendered affidavit before the Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi, that his son Rufee Khan, is, involved in criminal activities and, therefore, he is not keeping good terms with Rufee Khan. The said documents are at Annexure-B to the counter-affidavit, filed by Mr. The present Petitioner has tendered affidavit before the Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi, that his son Rufee Khan, is, involved in criminal activities and, therefore, he is not keeping good terms with Rufee Khan. The said documents are at Annexure-B to the counter-affidavit, filed by Mr. Rajiv Ranjan Singh, Deputy Superintendent of Police, Hatia, Ranchi dated 15th July, 2010. It has also been submitted by the learned Counsel for the Respondents that the present petition has been filed by the father of Rufee Khan with a view to save his son from the criminal offences. Rufee Khan for whom the present writ of habeas corpus has been preferred is wanted in Lalpur Police Station Case No. 67 of 2009 dated 1st April. 2009. The Investigating Officer has moved from heaven to sky in search of Rufee Khan, but, he is not available to the police. Father of Rufee Khan i.e. the present Petitioner is also non-cooperative and ultimately a warrant of arrest has also been obtained by the Investigating Officer of Lalpur Police Station Case No. 67 of 2009. The Investigating Officer has also searched the places outside the State of Jharkhand, but, said Rufee Khan is not traceable to the police and with a view to eyade the arrest, father of Rufee Khan i.e. the present Petitioner is levelling false and frivolous allegations against the police. The Petitioner is also changing his residential addresses. Thus, the present writ of habeas corpus deserves to be dismissed. It is further submitted that the statements, which have been annexed with the rejoinder affidavit of the Petitioner, have been further verified by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Sadar, Ranchi and Md. Nayeem An-sari, Md. Shaukat Ansari and Sri Guddu have stated that they have never given such statements. Annexure-A to the supplementary counter-affidavit, filed by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Hatia, Ranchi, dated 17th September, 2010 has been referred in detail. 4. Having heard learned Counsels for both the sides and looking to the facts and circumstances of the present case, it appears that the following are the cases registered against the son of the present Petitioner, namely, Rufee Khan alios Ravi Kant: (i) Lalpur Police Station Case No. 67 of 2009. (ii) Kotwali Police Station Case No. 199 of 2009. 5. Having heard learned Counsels for both the sides and looking to the facts and circumstances of the present case, it appears that the following are the cases registered against the son of the present Petitioner, namely, Rufee Khan alios Ravi Kant: (i) Lalpur Police Station Case No. 67 of 2009. (ii) Kotwali Police Station Case No. 199 of 2009. 5. It has also revealed during investigation that Rufee Khan for whom writ of habeas corpus is referred, is an active member of "Lakhan Singh Gang" and is also involved in Raju Dhanuka murder case. It also appears that time and again the Investigating Officers have tried to find out the whereabouts of said Rufee Khan at different places, but, he is not available. It appears that Rufee Khan is changing his addresses frequently. 6. It further appears that during course of investigation, father of said Rufee Khan i.e. the present Petitioner was also asked by the police about Rufee Khan, but, he has not cooperated and has not given any address of his son Rufee Khan. On the contrary, this Petitioner has stated before the Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi, on affidavit that as his son is involved in criminal activities, the Petitioner is not maintaining good terms with him and, therefore, he is not knowing the whereabouts of his son. This affidavit is at Annexure B to the counter-affidavit, filed by Mr. Rajiv Ranjan Singh, Deputy Superintendent of Police, Hatia, Ranchi dated 15th July, 2010. 7. It further appears that as neither Rufee Khan is traceable nor the father of Rufee Khan i.e. the present Petitioner is giving address of his son, ultimately the proceeding under Sections 82 and 83 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 was initiated and warrant of arrest was obtained by the Investigating Officer of Lalpur Police Station Case No. 67 of 2009. Son of Petitioner is thus absconding accused of Lalour Police Station Case No. 67 of 2009. Cases of murder and of Arms Act have been registered against said Rufee Khan and the Respondents have denied the custody of Rufee Khan with them. On the contrary, said Rufee Khan is wanted in criminal cases, as stated hereinabove. 8. Moreover, it also appears that in a rejoinder affidavit, filed by the Petitioner, his statements have been annexed. Cases of murder and of Arms Act have been registered against said Rufee Khan and the Respondents have denied the custody of Rufee Khan with them. On the contrary, said Rufee Khan is wanted in criminal cases, as stated hereinabove. 8. Moreover, it also appears that in a rejoinder affidavit, filed by the Petitioner, his statements have been annexed. We have perused those statements and it appears that there are self-contradictions in the said rejoinder affidavit, filed by the Petitioner. As the investigation is going on, we are not analysing these contradictions. It has also been stated in the supplementary counter-affidavit, filed by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Hatia, Ranchi, dated 17th September, 2010 that upon receiving the rejoinder affidavit and upon looking to the statements of the persons, which are annexed by the Petitioner, an inquiry was directed to be done through Deputy Superintendent of Police, Sadar, Ranchi, by one Sri Shams Tabrej and it has been stated that Md. Nayeem Ansari, Md. Shaukat Ansari and Sri Guddu have denied that they have given such statements, which are annexed with the rejoinder affidavit, filed by the Petitioner. Thus, there is no custody of Rufee Khan with the Respondents. On the contrary, there are several cases registered against said Rufee Khan. It appears that the Petitioner as well as said Rufee Khan are changing their addresses and the Petitioner is not giving the whereabouts of his son and he is, on the contrary, filing affidavits, as stated hereinabove to the effect that as his son Rufee Khan is involved in criminal activities, he has no relations with his son. Moreover, warrant of arrest has also been issued by the competent Court and said Rufee Khan has been declared absconding under the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 in connection with Lalpur Police Station Case No. 67 of 2009. It further appears that the statements, which have been annexed with the rejoinder affidavit, filed by the Petitioner, are highly disputed statements, looking to the further inquiry carried out by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Sadar, Ranchi (From Annexure A to the supplementary counter-affidavit, filed by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Hatia, Ranchi, dated 17th September, 2010). As a cumulative effect of these facts and reasons, Shri Rufee Khan is not in custody of Respondents. As a cumulative effect of these facts and reasons, Shri Rufee Khan is not in custody of Respondents. On the contrary he is absconding accused of Lalpur Police Station Case No. 67 of 2009. 9. Thus, there is no substance in the writ petition and, hence, the same is hereby dismissed. Petition dismissed.