Ct-\«cl- T?'"', E HIGH iTr'ATTTIS'C' l. T TiTT 4CT>1 Al Cll^AOri :^^^^^1^1^^ PETITK'NER RESPONDENTS 3. _S^.1LJ2»83 ' Abdul Haaif, S'o Late Abdul Majid. aged 65 years, occupation-Retired B.aiiway Empioyse, PJO Nayapara. Sirgitti, Bilaspur (C.G.) -VERSUS- 1. SupsrintendeBt ofpoiice, Biiaspur 2. Station House Officer. Police StatioD, Taibahar, Bilaspur iC.G.) WRIT UNDER ARTICLE 216 OF THE CONSTITTJTION OF INDIA FOR ISSUANCE OT A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF HABEAS CORPU? ^ ?<• .?0-HC_7§ 3:T??I %I WW '"T3n??iW7W te«;;a!:s~t"; rrac?i ^MM^, ^Tii-y'itc, Ts?^ra'y ..LO:S',3,3..^.. 'in 'w_ ii I'jqigqet! q;N?"ft:r fiiraf 4 lys^ ^ST<STT ^r atf^ 3^'t bjVi-sjon "BencfiT fa~t n..n.l and Hon'bte Shri L.C. BhQdoo. !J. 02.12.2003 j Shri Rajeev Shrivastava, 4ounsei for the petitioner. Shri P.5. Koshy, So.vt. Adv|ocate for the respondents. Heard both the counsei. The petitioner is the fatt-^er of Mohd. Naeem and it is stated in fne petition -riiat the Police hav^ taken Mohd. Naeem into custody on 21.11.2003 and he was illegaliy d^tained. Notice was issued to thfc respondents and on behalf of the re^ondents, reply is filed. It |s stated in the reply that the son of the petitioner was called for interrogation suspectlng him to be involved in a case [Crime No.421(/2003], registered under Section 302 of the I.P.C. of rape ana mur'd^r of a 15 years oia girl nameiy, Kum. Satyavati Yadav. Tne reason f<^r suspecting the son of the petitioner i.e. A<ohd. Naeem in the said crih*>e was that the D'ace where the dead body of deceased Kum. 5atyc|vati Yadav was found was only 10( meters away from the place i|»here ihe. shop ,(tea stall) of Mohd. Nameem siluates and fnere aj'e also witnesses who had seen the victiffl walking to 1+ie shop of Anohd. Naeem on the day on which she was found missing. 1 the petitioner wss caliea' for -4- XI-HC—78 T^ '^IPTM4, ®ri)y41<o,f^iTCT ..^.^.^3^ ^ 200 S •31R^ qil 7FW =!ar ST^I gTHf? <i<a< tiign <^i<;i'i ('^ST^a^T. s-j- •-OCW, •iWCT li TSW W»R?R i? aif^Er ss^ . after questioning he was allo|ffed to go. Again he was calied for interrogation on 23.11.2003 ar^d 25.11.2003 and after questioning he was allowed to go. TTiereafte|', again he was caiied for interrogation at 14:50 p.m. on 28.11.2003 an{J ufter interrogation he was alfowed to go on 29.11.2003 at 08:10 a.m. |The investigation is stit! going on. Learned counse! for 1jie petitioner submitt'ed that Mohd. Naeem, son of the petitioner jp present before rhe Court. It is ciear ! that the son of the petitioner js not in 1+ie custody of the Police. In the circumstances, tftis petition has become infruclijous ctnd it is dismissed as having becoir^ infructuous. In view of this orde", I.II.NO.11413/2003 stonds disposed of. Sd/- Chief Justice Sd/- L.C.BHADOO Judge