- (1.) AT the request of the parties, the arguments were heard and the habeas corpus petition is being disposed off finally. The petitioner has preferred this habeas corpus petition to direct the respondents to recover his missing son Santosh Kumar and to hand over him.
(2.) A notice to show cause was given to the respondents and in response thereto, a written reply has been filed wherein it is stated that the petitioner lodged a Missing Person Report No. 25/2011 on 23.5.2011 at Police Station Ramganj, Jaipur City, Jaipur about missing of his son Santosh Kumar since 22.5.2011. After registration of aforesaid MPR, Investigating Officer was appointed to trace out the petitioner's son. The photo of missing person was also sent for display on Doordarshan and news -paper. The Higher Officers of the police department were watching and monitoring the investigation day to day. It is further stated that during the course of the investigation, the Investigating Officer recovered the Mobile of missing person Santosh Kumar from Shri Rail Qureshi and the sim was in the name of Imran Qureshi and on enquiry, it came on record that one person had been injured in an accident near Samrat Cinema Hall, Subhash Chowk Circle, Jaipur and the injured was taken to Hospital. The injured was admitted in SMS Hospital, Jaipur on 22.5.2011, where he died on 23.5.2011. Thereafter on 7.6.2011 one person namely Jitendra Kumar lodged FIR No. 92/2011 for offence u/s 279 and 304A IPC at Police Station Subhash Chowk regarding above incident and dead body was handed over to him. After completion of investigation, the challan has also been filed in the above FIR lodged by Jitendra Kumar. Subsequently, it came to notice of the investigating agency that Jitendra Kumar, who lodged FIR No. 92/2011, was not the father of injured/deceased person. Thereafter an FIR No. 122/2012 was registered against him. The Investigating Officer sent the photos of Santosh Kumar for examination in FSL. Therefore, it is submitted in the reply that the detenu had already died and he cannot be produced. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that son of the petitioner was missing since 22.5.2011 but he was never informed by the concerned Police station about death of his son in road accident despite his Missing report lodged on 23.5.2011 itself. Now, the petitioner has been informed after such a long time about the death of his son. In these circumstances, some directions be issued to the respondents. However, he is unable to submit before the court that what type of direction he wants to be issued by this court, except that respondents be directed to remain careful in future.
(3.) AFTER considering the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, we are of the view that since it is not in dispute between parties that the detenu Santosh has died, therefore, no direction can be issued to produce the detenu. However, it is directed that the copies of both the FIRs and challan etc. will be provided to the petitioner or his counsel within one week by investigating agency so the petitioner may file application for appropriate remedy and/or for compensation etc. The petitioner is at liberty to seek any other remedy or appropriate relief in accordance with law. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the habeas corpus petition stands disposed of.;