IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Writ Petition No. M- 872 of 2009 (O&M) Date of Decision: 26.03.2010. Brijendra. ...... PETITIONER Versus State of Haryana and others. ...... RESPONDENTS CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA Present: Mr. A.K.Khunger, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. Ranvir Singh Arya, D.A.G., Haryana. *** RAM CHAND GUPTA, J.(Oral) The present petition has been filed by Brijendra under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ in the nature of Habeas Corpus for the appointment of a Warrant Officer to search the premises of the respondent Nos.2 and 3 situated in village Farukhnagar, District Gurgaon or any other place to be pointed out by the petitioner and to trace the minor daughter of the petitioner, aged 2-1/2 years and if she is found in illegal custody of the respondent Nos.2 and 3, she be set at liberty forthwith. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the whole record carefully. After hearing counsel for the petitioner coordinate Bench of this Crl.W.P.No.872 of 2009 Court issued notice of motion on 05.08.2009 that the girl who is alleged to be the detenue in custody of respondent Nos.2 and 3 was directed to be produced in Court. However, service upon respondent No.2 could not be effected. Service was effected upon respondent No.3 only. Respondent No.3 had joined the investigation and however, the detenue was not found with him. Reply was filed on behalf of State on 25.08.2009 detailing the efforts made by the police to trace out the detenue and respondent No.2 and however, none of them was traceable. Another status report dated 12.11.2009 was filed detailing the subsequent efforts. Another status report dated 09.12.2009 was also filed. Today, the latest status report has been placed on record on behalf of State. It has been argued by learned State counsel that there are as many as 49 Current Diary Reports regarding this case details of which has been mentioned in latest reply filed on behalf of State and however, neither the detenue nor respondent No.2 is traceable. Perusal of latest status report shows that as many persons were joined in the investigation and different places were raided and however, neither the girl nor respondent No.2 could be traced. It has been stated by learned State counsel that investigation is still going on and there is strong possibility that the police would be able to trace the victim and the accused in the near future. Hence, in view of latest status report placed on record on behalf of State, no further direction in this regard is called for. However, respondent – State is directed to continue with the efforts to trace out the detenue and respondent No.2. The present petition disposed of accordingly. 2 Crl.W.P.No.872 of 2009 ( RAM CHAND GUPTA ) March 26, 2010. JUDGE 'om' 3