Disposed

Lekh Ram Mohalia v. State of C.G. and Ors.

Chhattisgarh HC6 Nov 2009WPCR/5460/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Division Bench disposed of a writ petition seeking direction for a habeas corpus and investigation into a missing girl. The court found police efforts were adequate but directed the petitioner and the mother to cooperate and reveal any new evidence regarding the missing girl and the accused.

What did the court decide?

Directed the petitioner and respondent No. 4 to cooperate with the investigation and bring any relevant evidence regarding the whereabouts of the missing girl and accused to the notice of the Investig

Lekh Ram Mohalia Vs State of C.G. and Ors. — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Chhattisgarh HC (2009)

'-r E

HI6H COURT OF CHHATTIS6ARH AT BILASPUR

¶5

OIVISION BENCH;

¶6

HON'BLE mR. uMlRtNuRA mISHi<A a HON'BLE MR. R.N. CHAN&RAKAR, JJ Writ Petition CriminaD No. 5460 of 2007 under Arricie 226 of the Constitution af Indi<i()

¶7

Lekh Ram Mohalia. S/o Shri Pya'e Lal Mohlia. Age about 45 yea-s, Caste Lodhi, R/o ©ram Barbospur, Post Uperva. Thana-^humka, Tdisil Ct o UISTT. M-J^JL n-:.._—jt.-<.. Kajnanagaon ^ia^ //*i^\

¶8

¶9

RESPON&ENTS 1. Stort-e of Chhattisgarh, Throughthe Secretary, Home Department, &KS Bhawan, Raipur (C6)

¶10

1. Superintendent of Pofice, Rajnandgaon, Distt. Rajnandgaon (C&)

¶11

1. Stfffion House Offieer, Police Station(?huml<a, Distt. Raynand9awi (C6)

¶12

1. Thaneshiiuri Bai, w/o Lekhram Alohlia, Age about 40 R/o 6ram P<^>latola. years.

¶13

JaTTaaan, t- f-1ian. t«t Uondijdnard, uisrr; uur'g ^us)

¶14

Present: Mr. Yogesh Pandey, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. U.N.5. t>eo, 6'ovt. Advocate for respondent No.l to 3. Mr. Abhjshek Sharma, Advocate for respondent No .4

¶15

Per^bhirendrs Mishra, J;

¶16

Hsard on I.A. No.ll.

¶17

Application is allowed and the documents annexed with I.A. No.ll flre taken on record.

¶18

The by the instant has petitioner petition prayed for direction to respondent No.4 to produce the daughter of the petitioner before this Court bv issuance of• writ of- Habeas Corous and the oetitioner has / r r further orayed for direction to reseondent Nos.Z A 3 to investiaate with respect to Crime No.101/07 reqistered in Police Station Dhumka, bistrict Rajnondqaon aaainst Hitesh Sahu, Sandeeo bas & AAahadev Verma for the offence ounishable under Sections 363, 366, 34 the IPC

¶19

Mr. Deo, learned counsel for the Stafe submits thot ofter reaisterina the

¶20

above cr-ime. the Investigating Officer is making all sincere effort-s to trace the prosecutrix and absconding accused Hitesh Sahu, however.

^&z-

their whereabouts could not be ascertained till date. The Investigoting Officer hasalso made efforts to subject father of accused Hitesh Sahu and respondent No.4 to Narco analysis test nnd father ofaccused Hitesh hasalready consented for the same but respondent No.4 has refused and therefore, they hnve filed nn aDDlication CAnnexure A-6 to I.A. No.ll) before the comoetent court for Dermission to conduct Norco omalvsis test of respondent No.4 and the same is pending considerofion. Thus;the State is making all possible effort-s to trace the missihg airl.

¶25

Mr". Sharma, learnedcounsel appearing for respondent No,4 submits that respondent No.4 is being unnecessarily harassed at the instance of the petitioner by the police personnels. She is a reliaious lady nnd she has virt-ually renounced the world.

¶26

/Ar. Pandev, tearned counsel for the oetitioner subinits that thouah the Investioatinq Officer is makina effort's to trace the missina airi, however, necessary scientific investiaation to ascerl'nin the truth from respondent No.4 has not been done. It is not in dispute that the apDlication for Dermission to conduct Narco analvsis test uoon resoondent No.4 has been filed bv the Investiaatina Officer before the comsetent court and the same is oendina.

¶27

Takinq into consideration the reoort dated 3.7.2009 filed by the $tate ond documents annexed along with the reporf', we find that all possible efforts are beina made by the police to jnvestigate the motter. In these circumstances, we di'rect the Detitioner as also resoondent NO.+ to coooer-ate with the investiqation and brina to the notjce of the Investiaating Officer any evidence which they come across with r-espect to the whereabouts of the missinq qirl and accused Hitesh Sahu.

¶28

With the aforesaid observctions & dir-ections, the instant petitionstonds

disoosed of.

ftoshan/-

Sd/-

Dhirendra Mishra Judge

¶33

Sd;R.N. Chandrakar Judge

¶34

^--s ^

Lekh Ram Mohalia v. State of C.G. and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Lekh Ram Mohalia v. State of C.G. and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Commissioner of Wealth Tax Vs Balkrishan Kuldip Kumar (Huf)

Smt. Kaushalya Bai Vs State of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

Smt. Bindu Gurjar Vs State of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

Lochan Prasad Vs Anil Thorani

Vikas Das Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Suneel @ Kali Vs State of Chhattisgarh