^y.^iidit r? HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR 08: Hon'ble Shri Dhirendra Mishra & Hon'ble Shri R.N. Chandrakar. JJ. W.P. (Habeas Corpus) No. 7S38 of 2010 Petitioner Respondents Vs. 1. 2. 3. 4. Mayaram, S/o Ajabsingh, aged about 55 years, R/o. Village Kariyagondi, P.0. Dhokla P.S. Mohla, District Rajnandgaon (C.G.) State of Chhattisgarh, Through : Secretary, Home Department, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) Superintendent of Police, Rajnandgaon, District Rajnandgaon (C.G.) Station House Officer, Police Station Manpur, Tahsil-Manpur, District Rajnandgaon (C.G.) Gyanchand Gote, S/o Mayaram, aged about 30 years, Special Police Officer (SPO), P.S. Manpur, District Rajnandgaon (C.G.) W.P. (Habeas CorDuslNe._7550of20JO Petjtjoner Respondents Vs. 1. 2. 3. 4. Bodhi, S/o Antalu Gond, aged about 62 years, R/o Village Kalwar, Post Sitagaon, P.S. Aundhi, District Rajnandgaon (C.G.) State of Chhattisgarh, Through : Secretary, Home Department, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) Superintendent of Police, Rajnandgaon, Distrct Rajnandgaon (C.G.) Station House Offlcer, Potiee Station Manpur, District Rajnandgaon (C.G.) Hiruram, S/o Bodhi, aged about 25 years, Special PoliceOfficer (SPO), P.S. Aundhi, District Rajnandgaon (C.G.) -f- "'""TOE'"'^ IBKSBi 3En»IkB Vtfrit PeUUons underArticte 226 oftheCon^ifaitionotlnd'B Present: Shrl Anup IWajumdar with Shri Kamat Tekam, counsel for the petitionere. Shri Vlnay Harit, DeputyAdvocate General for the State. ORAL ORDER (Passed on 4th January, 2011) Per Dftfrendra Mshra. J 1. These writ petitions are disposed of by this common order as petftioners In these petitions have alleged that their sons/wards have been iflegalty detained by offlcials of the police station Manpur and Aundhi and they have been forced to discharge the duties of Specia! Police Officers against their wishes. tt has been further alteged that the' potice authortties are not permitting the petitioners or any other relatives of the resptmdent No. 4 to have access to them. In these circumstances, the writ of Habeas Corpus may be issued for productten of the respondent No. 4 and to direct the respondent authorities not to harass or torture the petitionere or his famiiy members on account of not joining the post of Special PoHce Officer. 2. Shri Vinay Hartt, leamed Deputy Advocate General for the StaSs, on instructions from Shri Sujeet Kumar, Adtfrtional Superintendent of Police, Rajnandgaon, submits that the respondents No. 4 namely Gyanchand and Hiruram were appointed as Special Police OTficer on their own request on 01.10.2010 and 01.01.2010 respectiveiy, and on screenlng, both of them have been removed on 26.11.2010 and 26.10.2010. JW 1/1/-\ 3. Shri Majumdar, leamed counsel for the petitioner submits that respondent No. 4 namely Gyanchand and Hiruram have some how managed to escape from the detention after filing of the writ petition. The respondent No. 4 has retumed. 4. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having regard to the fact that respondent No. 4 namety Gyanchand and Hiruram are present in person before this Court, nothing survives in this petition and the same are accordingly disposed of. However, it shall be open to the respondent No. 4 to take legal recourse for the aforesaid grievance before the appropriate forum. 5. Certified copy today. Wpy Sd/- Dhirendra Mishra Judge Sd/- R.N. Chandrakar Judge a9. l:p