Crl. W.P. No. 2226 of 2010 (1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. W.P. No. 2226 of 2010 DATE OF DECISION: 03.01.2011 Imran ..........Petitioner Versus State of Punjab & Ors. ..........Respondents BEFORE:- HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE DAYA CHAUDHARY Present:- None for the petitioner. Mr. Vishal Munjal, Additional Advocate General, Punjab. **** DAYA CHAUDHARY, J. The present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed on behalf Imran for issuing a writ in the nature of habeas corpus directing respondents No.1 and 2 to release/produce the detenues detailed in para No.5 of the petition, who are in the illegal custody of respondents No.3 and 4. While issuing notice of motion on 25.11.2010, Warrant Officer was also appointed and was directed to visit the place (s) as may be pointed out by the petitioner, in order to locate the said detenues. Reply on behalf of respondent No.1 has been filed in Court today and the same is taken on record. In compliance of directions issued by this Court on 25.11.2010, Warrant Officer has submitted his report dated 4.12.2010, wherein, he has stated that on 26.11.2010, the petitioner came to him and stated that Crl. W.P. No. 2226 of 2010 (2) presently he had no money to meet the expenses of conveyance for Warrant Officer and whenever he would have the money, he would come for the purpose. The petitioner had also given in writing in this regard, but he did not turn up and money was also not deposited, therefore, he could not visit the spot. . Learned counsel for the respondent-State submits that SDM, Phillaur along with Sub Inspector Amarjit Singh and Naib Tehsildar, who is present in Court, visited the spot and statements of various persons were recorded. The detenues mentioned in the petition were not found present at the spot. It has also been mentioned in the reply that there is no incident of any alleged bounded labour and after recording the statements of the persons present there, a detailed inquiry report was prepared by SDM, Phillaur. None of the persons mentioned in the writ petition were found in the illegal custody of respondents No.3 and 4. In view of the above as well as reply filed on behalf of respondent No.1, the present petition has become infructuous and is dismissed as such. .January 03, 2011 (DAYA CHAUDHARY) pooja JUDGE Note:-Whether this case is to be referred to the Reporter .......Yes/No