HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR DB: Hon'ble Shri Dhirendra Mishra & Hon'ble Shri R.N. Chandrakar. JJ. W.P. (Habeas Coroust No. 7538 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 yeare, Special Police Offlcer (SPO), P.S. Manpur, Dlstrtot Rajnandgaon (C.G.) W.P. (Habeas Corousl No. 7550 of 2010 Pefflioner wsf mw Respondents Vs. 1. 2. 3. 4. Bodhi, S/o Ankalu 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, Distrtot Rajnandgaon (C.G.) Station House Offlcer, Poliee Statlon Manpur, District Rajnandgaon (C.G.) Hiruram, S/o Bodhi, aged about 25 years, Special Police Officer (SPO), P.S. Aundhi, District Rajnandgaon (C.G.) lilll Writ Petitions underArtlcle 22S ofthe Constitutton ollndta Present: Shri Anup Majumdar with Shri Kamal Tekam, counsel for the petitioners. _ Shri Vinay Harit, DeputyAdvocate General for the^ate. ORAL ORDER (Passedon 4th January, 2011) PerDhfrsndraJMysftra. J 1. These writ petitions are disposed of by this common order as the petitioners in these petitions have alleged that their sons/wards have been ittegatly detained by officials of the potice station Manpur and Aundhi and they have been forced to discharge the duties of Special Police Officers against their wishes. It has been further alleged that the police authorities are not permrtting the petitioners or any other relatives of the respondent No. 4 to have access to them. tn these circurrsfances, the writ of Habeas Corpus may be issued for production of the respondent No. 4 and to direct the respondenf authorities not to harass or tortur®the petitioners or his family members on account of not joining the post of Speclal Police Officer. 2. Shri Vinay Harit, teamed Deputy Advocate General for the State, on instructions from Shri Sujeet Kumar, Additional Superintendent of Police, Rajnandgaon, submfts that the respondents No. 4 namety Gyanchand and t-1iruram were appointed as Special Police Officer on their own request on 01.10.2010 and 01.01.2010 respectlvely, and on screening, both of them have been removed on 26.11.2010 and 26.10.2010. ^A «a 3. Shri Majumdar, leamed counsel for the petitioner submite 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 tearned counsel for the parties and having regard to the fact that respondent No. 4 namely Gyanchand and Himram 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. Sd/- Dhirendra Mishra Judge Sd/- R.N.Chandrakar Judge ^