Dismissed

Sau. Saroj W/O Vinod Sardar v. the State of Mah. Thr. Its Secy. Home Deptt. and 2 Oths

Bombay HC14 Dec 2010WP/127/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Nagpur disposed of a habeas corpus petition filed by a relative of a missing person. The Court found no evidence of wrongful detention and observed that the investigation was conducted thoroughly. The Court dismissed the petition, recording that it would be reopened if new clues were provided.

What did the court decide?

The petition was disposed of; no further relief was granted.

Sau. Saroj W/O Vinod Sardar Vs the… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Bombay HC (2010)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR.

¶3

CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.127 OF 2010.

¶4

SAU. SAROJ VINOD SARDAR VS.

¶5

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS

¶6

______________________________________________________________________
Office Notes, Office Memoranda of

¶7

Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders
or directions and Registrar's orders.

¶8

Shri N. B. Bargat, Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri D. B. Patel, APP for State.

¶9

CORAM: A.H. JOSHI AND

¶10

 A.R. JOSHI, JJ.
DATE: 14th DECEMBER 2010.

¶11

1.By this petition, titled as petition for
issue of writ of habeas corpus, the petitioner
seeks direction to bring Vinod Sahadeorao Sardar
or his corpse.

¶12

2.Admittedly, it is not a case of wrongful

¶13

detention warranting issue of writ of habeas
corpus. Admittedly, it is a case that Vinod
Sahedeorao Sardar is reported to be missing. Even

¶14

as per the version of the petitioner, he is not
under detention either by private person or public
servant.

¶15

3.This Court had issued notices and received

¶16

on record the affidavits of the Investigating

¶17

Officer and Superior Officers. On account of

¶18

¶19

certain discrepancies in the affidavits, further
affidavits were called.

¶20

4.We have on record entire calender of
investigation. The details of manner in which the
investigation was supervised and from the contents,
we were prima facie satisfied with the fact that
generally the investigation was in order and no
stone was left unturned.

¶21

5.In order to have the satisfaction of the
petitioner, we had directed the Investigating
Officer to permit the petitioner's advocate the
access to the investigation papers to find out
whether any of the avenues of investigation have
not been resorted.

¶22

6.Learned Advocate Mr. Bargat states after
perusal of the investigation papers that the
investigation has been done thoroughly, however, it
need not be immediately closed and if some more
clue is available, the same could be given to the
police and the investigation could be further
continued.

¶23

7.While this request can be accepted, the
petition need not remain pending.

¶24

8.Acceptingthepositionthatthe

¶25

investigation has been carried out satisfactorily,
we dispose of the petition and record that if the

¶26

¶27

petitioner provides any clue or if police otherwise
comes to know in the process of investigation or
from any other source the trace of the person
reportedmissingtheinvestigationwould
necessarily be carried out to its possible, logical
end.

¶28

9.With these observations, we dispose of the
petition.

¶29

Judge

¶30

Judge

¶31

//mule//

Sau. Saroj W/O Vinod Sardar v. the State of Mah. Thr. Its Secy. Home Deptt. and 2 Oths

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sau. Saroj W/O Vinod Sardar v. the State of Mah. Thr. Its Secy. Home Deptt. and 2 Oths

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

Abdul Sayeem a. Bashir, Convict No. C 208 Vs the State of Mah. Thr. Secretary, Home Department and Anr.

Mahendra Purushottam Londhe, Convict No. C 8074 Vs the Divisional Commissioner, Nagpur Divisiona and Anr.

Nirbhayasingh Shamsingh Markam, Convict No. C 7225 Vs the State of Mah. Thr. the Secretary, Home Deptt. and 3 Oths

Gaju @ Gajanan Vishwanath Sonwane and Anr. Vs State of Mah. Thr. P.S.O. Wardha

Rajendra S/O Nilkanthrao Khare Vs the Registrar General, High Court of Bombay and 2 Oths

All Under Trial Prisoners from Central Jail Nagpur Vs the State of Mah. Thr. Secretary, Home Deptt. and 2 Oths