c. .. S • WQ Bend Jl IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR;C,G. W.P.(Habeas Corpus) no. O } Petitioner: .-°%< €f^ '^y A?^^ Narayan Das Sanyal @ Prasad Bijoy, aged 67 yrs., s/o late Shri Jyotirendra Nath Sanyal, C/o T-7, Senhati'Co- operative Colony Ltd., Behala, Kolkutta-34, West Bengal. Versus. Respondents: / 1. State ofChhattisgarh, through Secretary to the Home Dept, D.K.Bhawan secretariate, Raipur, C.G. 2. State ofAndhra Pradesh, fhrough Secretaiy to fhe Home dept. secretariate, Hyderabad, A.P. WRIT PETITION ( Habeas corpus) under Article 226 of The Constitution oflndia. 20 HIGH CCHJRT OF JUDICATURE CHHATTISGARH : BIL^PUR (DIVISIONBENCHl CORAM : Hon'bte Shri S.R. Nayak, CJ Hon'Me Shri D.R. Deshmukh, J. E M ..' \; -t-- PETITIONER RESPONDENTS Writ PetMkin No. 01 OF 2008 Narayan Etes Sanyal @ Prasad Bjjoy, aged 67 yrs., S/o Late Shri JyoUraTdra Nath Sanyal, C/o P-7. SenhaU Co- operative Colony Ud., Behata, Kodartta 34, WestBengal. Versus 1. State of ChhatUsgarh, throu^i Secratary to ttie Home Dept, D.K. Bhawan secretarlate, Raipur, C.G. 2. State of Andhra Pradesh, through Secretary to the Home dept. secretariate, Hyderabad, A.P. Present , Shri Bhishma Kinger, teamed counsel for the petfUoner. Shri P.K. Verma, leamed Addl. A.G. with Shri Utkarsh Verma, leamed Dy. G.A. for the State/respondent No.1. ORAL ORDER (Passed on 10m ofJanuary 2006) The following Order ofthe Courtwas passed by S.R.Nayak, CJ: The altegaUon in the writ peUfion is that flie detenue Narayan Das Sanyal was taken away from Raipur frwn hls residence by ChhatUsgarh Police on 28-12-2005 and that after 28-12-20re, hts whereabouts are not known. In response to tte noUce issued by the Court, respondent No. 1 / State of ChhatBsgart) represented by the Secretary to Uie Home Department has flled retum. In (he retum, it is stated that on service <rf n<rtice, fcey called for tnformation from atl the distrids of State of -^ 21 ChhatUsgarh and tt was found that the detenue is not cMained or arrested by any auUiorities within the State of ChhatUsgarh. Havlr^ stated tfiat, the firet responctent, in para 10 of the rehim, has statsd that the State Government has received a radto message / to< message from ths Director General and Inspedor General of Polks®, State <rf Andhra Pradesh informing that the ctetenue was arrested on 03-01-2006 and he was produced beifore the jurisdictional Judteial Magistrato First Class, Kothagudem and ttie leamed Magistrats has remanded him to the Poltee custody for a period of five days. The first respondent has enclosed a copy of the radto message / fax message and marked ft as Annexure R- 1/1. Although, teamed counsel for the petittoner would contend that since State of Andhra Pradesh, which is arrayed as respondent No. 2 to the wit petition, has not chosen to file refaim, what te stated in paia 10 of Uie retum of the first respondent cannot be taten to be a true statemwt, we have no good reason to doubt ttie integrity of the ^atemwit made in para 10 of the retum of the flrst respondent. The afRdavit was swom to by Shri P.S. Bara, Assistant Inspector General of Potiee. In addHfon, at the time of hearing, leamed AddiUonal Advocate Gensrat would also tell us that his client personalty spoke to the Director Generat of Polica, Stete of Andhra Pradesh and verifled the facts stated in para 10 of the rehim. Therefor®,tt <sinnot be said that the detenue has been detained illegaBy and witfwut authority of law. The petitioner can work out his tegal wmwSes as provided under Code of Criminat Procedure or any ctthw statute. There is no warrant to take any (urther steps in this writ peSBon. The writ peBtfon is accordingly disposed of. Nocosts. . Sd/- S.R. Nayak Chief Justice Sdf- Dilip Raosaheb Deshmukh Judge ./ fY