\e HI6H COURT OF CHHATTIS6ARH AT BILASPUR OIVISION BENCH; HON'BLE mR. uMlRtNuRA mISHi<A a HON'BLE MR. R.N. CHAN&RAKAR, JJ Writ Petition CriminaD No. 5460 of 2007 under Arricie 226 of the Constitution af Indi<i() Lekh Ram Mohalia. S/o Shri Pya'e Lal Mohlia. Age about 45 yea-s, Caste Lodhi, R/o ©ram Barbospur, Post Uperva. Thana-^humka, Tdisil o M-J^JL n-:.._—jt.-<..//*i^\ Ct UISTT. Kajnanagaon ^ia^ Vs RESPON&ENTS 1. Stort-e of Chhattisgarh, Through- the Secretary, Home Department, &KS Bhawan, Raipur (C6) 2. Superintendent of Pofice, Rajnandgaon, Distt. Rajnandgaon (C&) 3. Stfffion House Offieer, Police Station- (?huml<a, Distt. Raynand9awi (C6) 4. Thaneshiiuri Bai, w/o Lekhram Alohlia, Age about 40 years. R/o 6ram P<^>latola. t- f-1- t«t JaTTaaan, ian. Uondijdnard, uisrr; uur'g ^us) Present: Mr. Yogesh Pandey, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. U.N.5. t>eo, 6'ovt. Advocate for respondent No.l to 3. Mr. Abhjshek Sharma, Advocate for respondent No.4 .4 0 R A L O Rt> 6 R (Passed on 06.11.2009) Per^bhirendrs Mishra, J; 1. Hsard on I.A. No.ll. 2. Application is allowed and the documents annexed with I.A. No.ll flre taken on record. 3. The petitioner by the instant petition has prayed for direction to respondent No.4 to produce the daughter of the petitioner before this Court bv issuance of writ of Habeas Corous and the oetitioner has / • - r r further orayed for direction to reseondent Nos.Z A 3 to investiaate with respect to Crime No.101/07 reqistered in Police Station Dhumka, bistrict Rajnondqaon aaainst Hitesh Sahu, Sandeeo bas & AAahadev Verma for the offence ounishable under Sections 363, 366, 34 the IPC 4. Mr. Deo, learned counsel for the Stafe submits thot ofter reaisterina the above cr-ime. the Investigating Officer is making all sincere effort-s to trace the prosecutrix and absconding accused Hitesh Sahu, however. 3> E '-r r. v ^&z- their whereabouts could not be ascertained till date. The Investigoting Officer hasalso made efforts to subject father of accused Hitesh Sahu and respondent No.4 to Narco analysis test nnd father ofaccused Hitesh hasalready consented for the same but respondent No.4 has refused and therefore, they hnve filed nn aDDlication CAnnexure A-6 to I.A. No.ll) before the comoetent court for Dermission to conduct Norco omalvsis test of respondent No.4 and the same is pending considerofion. Thus;the State is making all possible effort-s to trace the missihg airl. 5. Mr". Sharma, learnedcounsel appearing for respondent No,4 submits that respondent No.4 is being unnecessarily harassed at the instance of the petitioner by the police personnels. She is a reliaious lady nnd she has virt-ually renounced the world. 6. /Ar. Pandev, tearned counsel for the oetitioner subinits that thouah the Investioatinq Officer is makina effort's to trace the missina airi, however, necessary scientific investiaation to ascerl'nin the truth from respondent No.4 has not been done. It is not in dispute that the apDlication for Dermission to conduct Narco analvsis test uoon resoondent No.4 has been filed bv the Investiaatina Officer before the comsetent court and the same is oendina. 7. Takinq into consideration the reoort dated 3.7.2009 filed by the $tate ond documents annexed along with the reporf', we find that all possible efforts are beina made by the police to jnvestigate the motter. In these circumstances, we di'rect the Detitioner as also resoondent NO.+ to coooer-ate with the investiqation and brina to the notjce of the Investiaating Officer any evidence which they come across with r-espect to the whereabouts of the missinq qirl and accused Hitesh Sahu. 8. With the aforesaid observctions & dir-ections, the instant petitionstonds disoosed of. ftoshan/- Sd/- Dhirendra Mishra Judge Sd;- R.N. Chandrakar Judge ^--s ^