ORDER : ABHILASHA KUMARI, J. 1. Mr. Sanat Pandya and Mr. Parth H. Bhatt, learned advocates, state that they received instructions from respondents Nos. 4 and 5, respectively, to appear on their behalf, therefore, they may be permitted to file their Vakalatnamas. They are permitted to do so. Mr. J.J Yagnik, learned advocate, submits that he has received instructions to appear on behalf of respondent No. 6 and has already filed his appearance in the Registry today. 2. Heard learned counsel for the respective parties. 3. The present Habeas Corpus petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been preferred with a prayer to direct the respondents to produce the corpus, namely, Shri Sandip Gopalbhai Prajapati, before this Court. 4. The petitioner is the brother of the corpus. It is stated in the petition that the petitioner is the Editor of “Natpur News Fortnightly” (local newspaper) being circulated in the city of Nadiad. The petitioner is also stated to be doing social work and raising public awareness in the city. The corpus is a journalist and the Editor of “Gujarat Heard News” (weekly newspaper) published in the city of Nadiad. 5. It is the case of the petitioner that being a journalist and an activist, the corpus left his home on 30.05.2017, to visit the Sachivalaya at Gandhinagar, along with respondent No. 6, an advocate, in order to take up the issue regarding the alleged illegal installation of mobile towers on the terrace of two schools situated at Nadiad, namely New English School and English Teaching School, run by respondents Nos. 4 and 5. As the corpus did not return home after the lapse of a considerable period of time, the petitioner and other family members tried to contact him on his mobile phone which was found to be switched off. The petitioner contacted the office of the corpus but received no information. An attempt was made by the petitioner to contact respondent No. 6 but he could not make contact as the phone of respondent No. 6 was switched off. The petitioner went to Nadiad West Police Station to register a complaint regarding the corpus being missing. It is alleged that instead of registering the compliant, the police authorities advised the petitioner to wait. They, however, recorded a formal statement of the petitioner. The petitioner went to Nadiad West Police Station to register a complaint regarding the corpus being missing. It is alleged that instead of registering the compliant, the police authorities advised the petitioner to wait. They, however, recorded a formal statement of the petitioner. When the petitioner could not trace the corpus anywhere, he had no other option but to file the present petition. 6. This Court issued Rule in the petition on 27.06.2017, making it returnable on 03.07.2017, on which date, the corpus was produced before the Court, escorted by Mr. Vasant P. Patel, Police Inspector, Nadiad Town Police Station. A statement dated 01.07.2017, given by the corpus before the police authorities was also produced on record. 7. Upon perusal of the statement dated 01.07.2 017, it is revealed that the corpus visited several places such as Nadiad, Rajkot and Mumbai where he stayed for a few days. It is categorically stated in the said statement by the corpus that he had voluntarily gone of his own free will and has not been kidnapped by any person. 8. The corpus was produced before us on 03.07.2 017, on which date he stated before the Court that in addition to what he has stated in the statement dated 01.07.2017, he has something further to add. We had, therefore, requested Shri H.D Suthar, Registrar (Vigilance), Gujarat High Court, to record the statement of the corpus in the Court premises. The statement was recorded by Registrar (Vigilance) and handed over to the Court on 03.07.2017 9. The statement dated 03.07.2 017 recorded by the Registrar (Vigilance) is taken on the record of the petition. 10. As the judicial time of the Court was over on 03.07.2 017, the corpus was asked to accompany the petitioner under escort, and to appear before the Court today. Accordingly, the corpus is present in the Court today. 11. A perusal of the statement dated 03.07.2 017 given by the corpus and recorded by the Registrar (Vigilance), indicates that he has described the events preceding and following his going away from Gandhinagar, in more detail. He has stated that on 30.05.2017, at about 2:30 to 3:00 pm, he was at the Sachivalaya, in the company of respondent No. 6. He told respondent No. 6 to sit upstairs, as he would like to go downstairs to smoke a cigarette. He has stated that on 30.05.2017, at about 2:30 to 3:00 pm, he was at the Sachivalaya, in the company of respondent No. 6. He told respondent No. 6 to sit upstairs, as he would like to go downstairs to smoke a cigarette. While the corpus was smoking a cigarette, two unknown persons came to him and threatened him by stating that he should not highlight the issue regarding the mobile towers on the schools run by respondents Nos. 4 and 5 and if he did so, he and his family would face dire consequences and his life would be ruined. The corpus has further stated that those two unknown persons told him to take a rickshaw and leave. The corpus was puzzled and agitated and immediately left the place. In the meanwhile, respondent No. 6 called the corpus on his mobile and asked him his whereabouts, to which the corpus replied that he had some work in Nadiad and was going there. The corpus then left on his own accord and visited several places. 12. The Court is conscious of the nature of the jurisdiction being exercised by it, which is habeas corpus jurisdiction regarding production of the corpus and its release from illegal custody or detention. The prayer made in the petition is for the production of the corpus before this Court. The corpus has now been produced. There is no allegation in the petition regarding any illegal confinement or detention of the corpus by any person. A careful perusal of both the statements given by the corpus dated 01.07.2017 and 03.07.2017, indicates that whatever may have been the reason for doing so, the corpus himself left the place and went away to various places as described in the statements. He has not been kidnapped or kept in illegal confinement or custody by any person. He has stated so categorically. 13. This Court is not concerned with the disputes, if any, between the corpus and respondents Nos. 4 and 5 and would not like to comment upon this aspect in the present proceedings. As the corpus has been produced before the Court and it transpires from his own statements that he has not been kidnapped, abducted, illegally confined or detained by any person, nothing further remains for adjudication in the present petition. 14. 4 and 5 and would not like to comment upon this aspect in the present proceedings. As the corpus has been produced before the Court and it transpires from his own statements that he has not been kidnapped, abducted, illegally confined or detained by any person, nothing further remains for adjudication in the present petition. 14. The Registry is directed not to provide copies of the statement dated 03.07.2 017 of the corpus to any person but it shall be ensured that the said statement remains on the record of the case, in a sealed cover. 15. The petition is, therefore, disposed of. The corpus, Shri Sandip Gopalbhai Prajapati, is at liberty to leave the Court premises with the petitioner. Rule is discharged.