Disposed

Rajesh Kumar v. State of U.P. and 2 Ors.

Allahabad HC21 May 2019CRLP/3094/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal writ petition filed for the recovery of a missing daughter (victim) whose DNA match led to an accused's arrest, the High Court disposed of the petition. The Court held a narco test was inadmissible and no further reason existed to keep the matter pending, granting liberty to approach the investigating agency with specific clues.

What did the court decide?

Petition disposed off; liberty to move an application before the Investigating Agency if specific clues for recovery are available.

Rajesh Kumar Vs State of U.P. and 2 Ors. — Writ and Judicial Review | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 33

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 3094 of 2018

¶3

Petitioner :- Rajesh Kumar Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Ors. Counsel for Petitioner :- Lallan Prasad,Amar Bahadur Singh Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Manoj Misra,J. Hon'ble Suresh Kumar Gupta,J .

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner; learned A.G.A. for the State-respondent nos. 1, 2 & 3 and perused the record.

¶6

The instant petition has been filed for direction upon the respondent to search out and recover the victim, Neha, the daughter of the petitioner.

¶7

It appears that F.I.R. was lodged by the petitioner at Police Station Mauiama, District Allahabad as Case Crime No. 405 of 2017, under Section 363 I.P.C., against unknown person.

¶8

The investigation proceeded but as the daughter was not recovered, this writ petition was filed.

¶9

An affidavit was called from the investigating officer as regards the efforts made to investigate the matter.

¶10

The affidavit of the Investigating Officer discloses that the accused, Surender Kumar, was found involved and he was arrested and charge-sheeted. However, the victim could not be recovered. It is stated that the photorgraph of the victim was sent for publication as a missing person and a team was also constituted. It is stated that a broadcast was also made in Doordarshan and Akashwani about the missing victim. It is stated that pamphlets were distributed and pasted at various places for information about the victim but no clue could be received.

¶11

We had required the learned counsel for the petitioner to file an affidavit disclosing the steps that could be taken but not taken for recovery of the missing girl.

¶12

Learned counsel for the petitioner has filed a supplementary affidavit today.

¶13

In the supplementary affidavit it is stated that narco test of the accused was not conducted.

¶14

As narco test is not admissible in evidence and considering that the accused has already been arrested and search has already been made for recovery of the missing girl, we do not find a good reason to keep the matter pending.

¶15

This petition is therefore disposed off by giving liberty to the petitioner to move an application before the Investigating Agency, in case any specific clue is made available to the petitioner for recovery/discovery of the victim. It is expected that if any such application is filed giving some clue as regards the presence of the victim, the Investigating Agency shall sincerely act upon the same and make all possible efforts to recover the missing person.

¶16

The petition is disposed off.

¶17

Or der Date :- 21.5.2019 Vibha Singh

Rajesh Kumar v. State of U.P. and 2 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajesh Kumar v. State of U.P. and 2 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Apoorv Dixit Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Kirti Prakash @ Gagan Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Indrajit Singh and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Vikrant and 4 Others Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Abbal Singh and 4 Others Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Hemant Rav Patel Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others