P.SATHASIVAM, J. - (1.) LEAVE granted.
(2.) THIS appeal is directed against the final judgment and order dated 09.04.2012 passed by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh in Writ Petition No. 3803 of 2011 whereby the Division Bench of the High Court dismissed the petition filed by the appellant herein. Brief facts: (a) On 10.02.2011, at about 4 p.m., a posse of forest officials of the Betul Range, District Betul, forcibly took away one Kusum, W/o Taarbabu Pardhi and Rajnandani, D/o Ankit Pardhi, aged about 14 years, from the fish market in their jeep. When the persons present at the site tried to resist the force of the forest officials, Kusum somehow managed to jump from the jeep but the minor girl Rajnandani was whisked away by them. (b) Alsia Pardhi­the appellant herein, being the uncle of the kidnapped minor girl, on 13.02.2011, made a complaint to the SHO, Kotwali Betul, alleging that the minor girl is in the custody of the officials of the Forest Department and requesting to register a case of kidnapping against them. (c) On 14.02.2011, the appellant and his community members made a complaint to the Chief Conservator of Forests, Forest Range, Betul -Respondent No. 3 herein, requesting him to take punitive action against the forest officials and to get the minor girl released. (d) When all the efforts in tracing the girl failed, the appellant, on 24.02.2011, approached the High Court by filing a writ of habeas corpus praying that Rajnandani be directed to be produced before the Court and the Superintendent of Police ­ Respondent No. 2 herein be directed to register an FIR against the forest officials involved in kidnapping and illegal detention of the minor girl as well as against those who have been instrumental in shielding and protecting the accused. (e) On 01.03.2011, the High Court directed Respondent No. 2 herein to either produce the corpus of the missing girl or to submit the progress report. On 19.04.2011, the High Court, considering the seriousness of the matter, directed the appellant to produce Kusum before the CJM, Betul, on 02.05.2011, on which date, the CJM, Betul shall record her statement and send it to the Court. (f) On 02.05.2011, the statement of Kusum was recorded. Vide order dated 13.07.2011, the High Court, taking note of the fact that Kusum also alleged against the forest officials who caught Rajnandani along with her, held that the matter deserves to be investigated fairly and effective steps need to be taken by the State for production of Rajnandani before the Court and also directed Respondent No. 2 to take effective steps to produce the minor girl on the next date of hearing. (g) On 10.08.2011, i.e., on the next date of hearing, the Deputy Advocate General for the State filed a report in the matter and submitted that as per the report of the Police, Rajnandani was not detained by the Forest Officials. The High Court, after perusing the record and considering the report to be doubtful, granted further opportunity to the police to produce corpus of Rajnandani and also directed that in case Respondent No.2 fails to produce her on the next date of hearing, it would be compelled to direct the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) to take up the investigation into its hands. On 27.08.2011, Respondent No. 2 again submitted a progress report. The High Court, being not satisfied with the report, directed the Superintendent of Police, Betul to appear in person on the next date of hearing. On 12.09.2011, when the Superintendent of Police, Betul explained the circumstances in which the investigation was being conducted, the High Court observed that no proper investigation had been done by the police with the forest officials against whom the allegations had been made and gave one more chance to the Respondent No. 2 to produce Rajnandani before the Court. On 17.10.2011, Respondent No. 2 again filed a progress report before the Court in which it was stated that Rajnandani had tried to contact her father thrice from different mobile numbers but still the police officials were not able to trace her. (h) On 07.04.2012, Respondent No.2 filed an affidavit accepting the statements of forest officials and did not give any weightage to the statement of the eye -witness Kusum. It was also stated that the police accepted the version of the forest officials verbatim. (i) On 09.04.2012, the High Court, by accepting the progress report dated 07.04.2012, without taking note of the statement of the eye -witness Kusum, dismissed the writ petition. The High Court also held that the present case is not of illegal and forceful confinement warranting issue of a writ of habeas corpus but is a case of missing person. It was also held that there is no allegation in the petition to the effect that Rajnandani has been subjected to wrongful confinement either by the forest authorities or the police. (j) Being aggrieved, the appellant herein has filed this appeal by way of special leave.
(3.) HEARD Mr. Prashant Bhushan, learned counsel for the appellant and Ms. Vibha Datta Makhija, learned senior counsel for the State of M.P.;