IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL HABEAS CORPUS PETITION NO.4 OF 2010 (Crl.) WITH INTERIM RELIEF APPLICATION NO.1412 OF 2010 Mohd. Ikram and another ……… Petitioners Versus State of Uttarakhand and others ……… Respondents Dated: June 3, 2010 HON. DHARAM VEER, J. Heard Ms. Joyce Irwin, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Prabhakar Joshi, learned brief holder for the State. By means of this petition, moved under Article 226 of The Constitution of India, the petitioners have prayed for release of detenues mentioned in Para-8 of the petition from the illegal custody of respondent no.6. Allegation of the petitioners is that the petitioners and their family had gone to work at Brick Kiln Company of respondent no.6 in the month of November 2009 on the assurance that appropriate arrangements for the petitioners and their families’ stay shall be made during the course of their employment in the Brick Kiln owned by respondent no.6. But thereafter respondent no.6 did not pay heed to the petitioners’ requests for payment of their wages and as a measure to subdue the petitioners put their wife and children under his own custody. Respondent no.6 is not releasing the detenues mentioned in Para-8 of the petition. A counter affidavit has been filed by Sri Devendra Singh Chauhan, Senior Sub Inspector wherein at Para-3 it is 2 stated that the persons mentioned in Para-8 of the writ petition are at present not working in M/s Ganesh Brick Field, Village Kumrari Tehsil Roorkee and they have left the work from there on their own wishes and some of them are residing with relatives and some of them have gone to their houses. In support of this fact, copies of certificate/application submitted by persons mentioned in para-8 of the writ petition jointly have been annexed as Annexure No.CA1 with the counter affidavit. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case as well as on careful perusal of the certificate and application (Annexure No.C.A.1), it is proved that the persons mentioned in para-8 of the writ petition have left the work from M/s Ganesh Brick Field on their own wishes and have gone to live with their relatives. The victims are not in the illegal detention of respondent no.6. Hence, the prayer, as sought by the petitioners, cannot be granted. For the reasons as aforesaid, the habeas corpus petition is devoid of merits and is accordingly dismissed. (Interim Relief Application No.1412 of 2010 also stands dismissed). (Dharam Veer, J.) 03.06.2010 RG