Disposed

Sebati Puta v. State of Odisha

Orissa HC9 Jun 2021WPCRL/116/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a habeas corpus petition filed over six years after the husband went missing, the Court held that despite police efforts, the whereabouts remained unknown. The Court directed the IIC to inform the petitioner bi-monthly of investigation progress.

What did the court decide?

The IIC Patnagarh to inform the petitioner of investigation progress at least once every two months in writing or over the phone.

Sebati Puta Vs State of Odisha — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Orissa HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK WPCRL No.116 of 2015

Sebati Puta

…. Petitioner

None

-versus-

…. State of Odisha and Others Opposite Parties

¶7

Mr. J. Katikia Additional Government Advocate

¶8

CORAM: THE CHIEF JUSTICE JUSTICE K.R. MOHAPATRA

Order No.

ORDER 09.06.2021

This matter is taken up by video conferencing mode. Despite a pass over, none appears for the Petitioner.

¶13

This petition was filed in 2015 seeking a writ in the nature of habeas corpus and praying for a direction to the Opposite Parties i.e. the Superintendent of Police (SP), Bolangir (Opposite Party No.2) and the Inspector-in-Charge (IIC), Patnagarh Police Station, Bolangir (Opposite Party No.3) to produce Goura Puta, the husband of the Petitioner, before the Court. The Petitioner also sought a direction to Opposite Party Nos.1 to 3 to take immediate action against Opposite Party Nos.4 and 5, the two individuals with whom the husband of the Petitioner was stated to have been, when he went missing on or around 17^th October, 2008.

¶14

Page 1 of 5

¶15

For the reasons that not very clear, the Petitioner approached Patnagarh Police Station with a complaint about her husband having gone missing, only on 11^th December, 2014 i.e. more than six years after he was supposed to have gone missing. According to the Petitioner, her husband had been to Hyderabad around 17^th October 2008 with Opposite Party No.4 to fetch Opposite Party No.5 who was working in a brick kiln there. Since then her husband not returned home. According to the Petitioner, when she enquired from Opposite Party Nos.4 and 5, on their return, about her husband they kept assuring her that he would return but he did not.

¶16

On the above complaint, an FIR was registered as Patnagarh P.S. Case No.250 of 2014 for the offences under Sections 363/34 IPC. From the status report filed in the form of an affidavit by the police in this Court on 8^th September 2017, it appears the police extensively questioned Opposite Party Nos. 4 and 5 and sent information about the missing person to all police posts in Western Odisha and the districts near Patnagarh. What could be ascertained was that after the brick kiln owner declined to permit Opposite Party No.5 to leave immediately, Opposite Party No.4 and the missing person, Goura Puta, decided to return and boarded a train at Secunderabad. Opposite Party No.4 slept in the upper berth and Goura Puta in the lower berth. It appeared that Goura Puta got off the train at around 2 am at a station near Rayagada to drink water but did not return to the train. Opposite Party No.4 continued with his journey home. It is stated that despite best efforts, the missing person could not be traced out.

¶17

Page 2 of 5

¶18

It further appears that at one stage, the family of the missing person was asked to identify if the body of a person found dead on the tracks between Alamunda and Korukonda stations, 40-50 km from Waltiar Railway Station, was that of the missing person. However, the family stated that it was not his. Likewise. there was another undetected case at the Rayagada GRPS, U.D. Case No.42 of 2008 dated 23^rd December, 2008 which was also a case of an accidental fall of a person from a moving train. However, according to the family, the body found here also did not match the missing person.

¶19

Pursuant to the orders passed by this Court, further status reports have been filed by the police periodically. The most recent ones are dated 29^th April, 2021 and 5^th June, 2021. These reveal that continuous efforts have been made by the police to trace out the missing person. It must be acknowledged that when a complaint is filed more than six years after the person has allegedly gone missing, it is difficult for any investigation agency to locate the vital clues that will help them trace the missing person. Crucially, public witnesses might have moved on and even otherwise human memory of particular events and persons who might be total strangers, fades.

¶20

This petition has been now pending for over six years. Despite the close monitoring by the Court of the steps taken by the police to trace out the Petitioner's husband, his whereabouts continue to

¶21

Page 3 of 5

¶22

remain unknown. This is not for want of trying. The police have nevertheless assured the Court that investigation is still in progress "with the ray of to trace him out". In light of the said assurance, the only direction that requires to be issued to the IIC of P.S. Patnagarh is to keep the Petitioner or any close relative staying with her informed at least once in every two months in writing and over phone, if a number is available, of the progress of investigation. It is ordered accordingly.

¶23

In the order dated 30^th April, 2021 this Court had also called for a report on the steps taken by the local administration to engage migrant labourers under the different beneficial schemes floated by the State Government. Pursuant thereto, the District Labour Office, Bolangir has sent a report in this regard on 10^th May, 2021 to the Deputy Collector (Judl.), Collectorate Bolangir. It appears that during the last five years 137 cases have been registered against illegal transportation of labour from Bolangir and cases have been instituted against 220 accused persons. It is stated that 2313 labourers have been rescued. Further, during the COVID-19 pandemic, the police are stated to have made special arrangements for around 67,328 migrants including providing them with food, accommodation and transportation when they returned to Bolangir from other places in the country.

¶24

The Court notes that on this very issue of the basic needs and legal protection of migrant labourers, this court is seized of another petition in the form of a public interest litigation (PIL) filed by lawyer Mrs. Mrinalini Padhi being W.P. (C) (PIL) No. 15380 of

¶25

Page 4 of 5

¶26

2021 (Mrinalini Padhi v. Union of India) . Copies of the aforementioned reports submitted to this Court on this issue in the present petition be placed in the file of the said PIL. One set thereof shall be given to Mrs. Padhi as well.

¶27

The petition is disposed of with the above directions (in para 7) to Opposite Party Nos.2 and 3 and as regards informing the Petitioner periodically about the progress of the investigation and to the Registry in para 9 above in regard to the issue of migrant labour in general.

¶28

As the restrictions due to resurgence of COVID-19 situation are continuing, learned counsel for the parties may utilize a printout of the order available in the High Court’s website, at par with certified copy, subject to attestation by the concerned advocate, in the manner prescribed vide Court’s Notice No.4587, dated 25^th March, 2020 as modified by Court’s Notice No.4798, dated 15^th April, 2021.

¶29

( Dr. S. Muralidhar)

¶30

Chief Justice

¶31

(K.R.Mohapatra) Judge

¶32

S.K. Jena/P.A.

¶33

Page 5 of 5

Sebati Puta v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sebati Puta v. State of Odisha

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

Saroj Kumar Sahoo Vs Uco Bank

Rashmita Pattnayak @ Pattnaik Vs State of Odisha

M/S. Kjsl Utkal(Jv) Vs Mcl

M/S. Tybas Projects Pvt.Ltd. Vs Manas Bhoi

M/S.Tybas Projects Pvt.Ltd. Vs Debasish Patra

M/S.Tybas Projects Pvt.Ltd. Vs Sagarika Priyadarshini