1 Cri.Writ Petition No.616/2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.616 OF 2010 Ambadas s/o Sadhu Jadhav ..PETITIONER VERSUS The State of Mah. & anr. ..RESPONDENTS Mr U.S. Malte, Advocate for the petitioner; Mr K.S. Patil, A.P.P. for respondent no.1; Mr N.B. Suryawanshi, Advocate for respondent no.2 CORAM : P.V. HARDAS AND A.V. POTDAR, JJ. DATE : 1st December, 2010 PER COURT : This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuing a writ of habeas corpus for producing Ashok in this Court. According to the petitioner, his son Ashok who was aged 25 years, was missing since 8.2.2010. Accordingly a complaint came to be lodged to the concerned police station that Ashok was missing since 8.2.2010. The police immediately launched a search for tracing the whereabouts of Ashok but were not successful. Thereafter it appears that a complaint came to be filed by the present petitioner alleging therein that respondent no.2 had abducted his son Ashok and accordingly an offence vide Crime 2 Cri.Writ Petition No.616/2010 No.49 of 2010 under section 365 of the Indian Penal Code came to be registered on 25.2.2010. Pursuant to the registration of the offence, respondent no.2 was arrested and was interrogated and thereafter was placed in magisterial custody. Eventually, respondent no.2 came to be released on bail. 2. By this petition the petitioner prays that a writ be issued directing respondent no.2 to produce Ashok in this Court. Respondent no.2 has filed an affidavit in reply and in the affidavit in reply it is clearly stated that Ashok was never in the custody of respondent no.2. It is also stated that the present respondent no.2 had given a lift to Ashok on his motorcycle and beyond that respondent no.2 is not aware about the cause of disappearance of Ashok. In the light of the aforesaid facts and the fact that the police had taken all measures which are available in law for tracing the whereabouts of Ashok, we dismiss this writ petition insofar as it relates to issuance of a writ of habeas corpus. 3. The petitioner has also prayed for issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the transfer of investigation from the local police to the C.I.D. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has very fairly admitted that no demand in this respect has been made by the petitioner with the Government. It is stated before us that the petitioner would submit appropriate application to the respondent - Government for transfer of the investigation to the C.I.D. We, therefore, while dismissing this petition 3 Cri.Writ Petition No.616/2010 in respect of the aforesaid relief, direct the respondents to decide the application of the petitioner, if submitted, within a reasonable period, in any event not later than three months from the date of its presentation and pass orders in accordance with law. It is needless to state that if the petitioner is aggrieved by the aforesaid orders, the petitioner may resort to such remedies as are available to the petitioner in law and the dismissal of this writ petition insofar as the said relief is concerned, would not come in the way of the petitioner. 4. Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed with the liberty as stated above with no order as to costs. ( A.V. POTDAR, J.) ( P.V.HARDAS, J.) amj/criwp616.10