Harsh Kumar, J. - (1.) Heard Sri R.O.V.S. Chauhan, learned counsel for petitioners, Sri Anoop Trivedi, learned counsel for respondent nos.4 to 6, Sri D.C. Srivastava, learned counsel for respondent no.7 and learned AGA for the State, and perused the record.
(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the petitioner no.1 is father of petitioner no.2 Ronak Jindal, who had taken admission in B.Tech in S.R.M. Institute of Science & Technology, Ghaziabad on 22.5.2015; that the corpus joined the class from 17.7.2015 and since after one month he went to his home at Karauli, Rajasthan during vacation and on returning back after 7 days on 17.8.2015 joined the hostel of S.R.M. College 'F' Block, Room No.216; that on 24.8.2015 he talked to petitioner no.1 through mobile phone and since, thereafter, petitioner no.1 tried his best in spite of which, the corpus petitioner no.2 could not be traced out; that the petitioner no.1 made complaint at police station Ghaziabad and lodged F.I.R. at case crime no.196 of 2015 against two unknown persons under section 365 IPC; that it was stated in the F.I.R. that "as per information given by friends of corpus, he left the hostel on 24.8.2015 between 12:00 to 2:00 p.m. and after taking tea at a tea stall opposite Samrat Hotel with two other boys, he booked a room in Samrat Hotel at 5:49 p.m. and from the room of hotel, he called him on phone and told that he is staying in Samrat Hotel and is in great distress, so the petitioner No.1 may come to fetch him, upon which the petitioner no.1 immediately left his village Karauli, Rajasthan and tried to contact his son on phone, which was reporting to be switched off since last 3 days and his son is not traceable; that his son had left the hotel at 9:00 p.m. saying he is going to take dinner, but did not return and it appears that his son has been kidnapped by the above mentioned two boys" that despite repeated orders in criminal case as well as by this Court, the corpus has not been traced out; that sincere efforts have not been made by the police authorities; that despite lodging of F.I.R., the writ for habeas corpus is not barred and the appropriate orders are required to be issued directing respondent nos.4 to 6 as well as respondent no.7 to produce the corpus Ronak Jindal before the Court and hand over him to the petitioner no.1; that since the corpus was studying in S.R.M. Institution of Science & Technology and was living in hostel of the institute, it will be deemed that he is in wrongful confinement of respondent nos.4 to 6 and since he had booked a room in Hotel Samrat, it will also be deemed that the corpus is in unlawful confinement of respondent no.7 also.
(3.) Per contra, learned AGA submitted that the petitioner himself has lodged F.I.R. regarding kidnapping of the corpus by two unknown boys, without there any whisper or complaint of raging with corpus, so the question of unlawful confinement of corpus by respondent nos.4 to 7 or any of them does not arise; that the police authorities have left no stone unturned in search of the corpus, but still he could not traced out; that the petitioner himself has not provided the name of any of the two boys against whom the F.I.R. was lodged for kidnapping the corpus; that the petition for habeas corpus is misconceived in view of the law laid down in the case of Sakiri Vasu v. State of U.P. 2008 (2) SCC 409 .;