IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. WJC No.785 of 2010 SHAILENDRA SINGH, S/o Ram Ayodhaya Singh, R/o Village- Bishanpura, P.S.-Bihta, District- Patna. ……….. Petitioner. Versus 1. STATE OF BIHAR. 2. The Director General of Police, Bihar. 3. The Senior Superintendent of Police, Patna. 4. The Rural Superintendent of Police, Patna. 5. The Officer Incharge, Bihta Police Station, Bihta, District- Patna. 6. Md. Ziya, S/o Md. Badaruddin. 7. Md. Badaruddin, Son of not known father of Md. Ziya. Both residents of Ajmeri Nagar, P.O. & P.S.-Bihta, District-Patna. ……… Respondents. ----------- 5. 26-10-2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the State and learned counsel for Respondent no. 7. The petitioner, father of Anamika Kumari, has filed this writ application in the nature of habeas corpus with a prayer to command respondents to make serious efforts for searching out his daughter and to produce her, since at present she is in the illegal confinement of Respondent nos. 6 and 7. The case of the petitioner as disclosed in the writ application is that his daughter, Anamika Kumari left her house in the morning on 02.04.2010 for attending coaching classes, but did not return. Subsequently he came to know that she had been abducted by Md. Ziya. 2 The petitioner informed the local police and accordingly Bihta P.S. Case No. 75 of 2010 was registered on such information. The petitioner has tried to make out a case of abduction of his minor daughter by Respondent no. 6 Md. Ziya for the purpose of marriage or for any other illegal purposes. On perusal of Annexure-4 of the writ application, which is the order passed by the District & Sessions Judge, Patna in A.B.A. No. 2037 of 2010 in connection with Bihta P.S. Case No. 75 of 2010 dated 23.04.2010, it transpires that so called victim girl Anamika Kumari herself appeared before the court and made statement that she was never kidnapped by anyone. She also disclosed that on account of torture meted out to her by her parents, she herself left her house and presently she is living with her friend. She has not stated that Respondent no. 6 is in any way responsible for her abduction and keeping her in illegal confinement. A counter affidavit has also been filed on behalf of the Respondent no. 3, the Senior Superintendent of Police, Patna, which also discloses that the daughter of the petitioner has completely denied the allegation regarding her kidnapping by any one or by Respondent no. 7. In the counter affidavit filed by Respondent No. 7 it has been stated that Respondent no. 7 has no concerned with the 3 daughter of the petitioner. She was never taken away by him and at present also Anamika Kumari is not living with Respondent no. 7. Considering the facts that the petitioner had full knowledge about the order passed by the District and Sessions Judge, Patna, he had no cause of action for filing this criminal writ application making a prayer regarding issuance of a writ of habeas corpus. There is no reason for filing such applications when the case is being investigated by the police and the final form or the charge sheet accordingly is going to be submitted by the investigating agency. The victim girl herself has made statement completely denying her illegal confinement. This is completely a frivolous writ application. Accordingly, it is being dismissed. Sujit (Mridula Mishra,J.) (Dharnidhar Jha,J.)