1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 885 OF 2008 Divyaprashant s/o Ramesh Ghorpade, Age 37 years, Occ. Electrician, R/o Jahangir Colony, Harsool, Aurangabad ..PETITIONER VERSUS 1. Rajesh s/o Gulabhand Makriye Age 35 years, Occ.Business, R/o Modikhana, Near Amit Hotel, Jalna 2. Sakhubai w/o Baburao Ambildhage, Age 45 years, Occ. Service, R/o Near Rajmahal Theatre, Kadrabad, Jalna 3. Kantabai w/o Kisan Gaikwad, Age 48 years, Occ. Service, R/o Near Rajmahal Theatre, Kadrabad, Jalna 4. Kiranbai w/o Ashok Kamble, Age : 30 years, Occ. Household, R/o Lakkadkot, Sambhaji Nagar, Jalna 5. Nandabai Kale, Age : 40 years, Occ. Household, R/o Shambhu Nagar, Aurangabad, OR Near Rajmahal Theatre, Kadrabad, Jalna 2 6. Pinki Shinde, Age : 35 years, Occ. Household, R/o Sainagar, Behind House of Municipal Corporator, Jalna 7. Jitendra s/o Nelson Londhe, Age 42 years, Occ. Labour, R/o Krantinagar, Behind Mission Hospital, Jalna 8. Police Inspector, Police Station, Sadar Bazar, Jalna 9. The State of Maharashtra, through Superintendent of Police, Police Superintendent Office, Jalna ..RESPONDENTS Mr B.H. Gaikwad, Advocate for the petitioner; Mr R.V. Gore, Advocate for respondent no.1; Mr K.B. Jadhav, Advocate holding for Mr S.B. Bhapkar for respondent no.6. Petition dismissed as against respondent no.7; Mr D.R. Kale, A.P.P. for respondents no.8 & 9. CORAM : P.V. HARDAS AND A.V. POTDAR, JJ. DATE : 22nd October, 2010 PER COURT : This is a petition filed by the petitioner for issuance of a writ of habeas corpus against respondents no.1 to 7 for producing his wife Shobha and his three children. According to the petitioner, his wife and his three children are missing since 6.5.2006. The petitioner had 3 accordingly lodged a missing report on 18.7.2006. The petitioner contends that on the basis of certain instances which are narrated in the petition, the petitioner has reasonable grounds for apprehending that his wife and his children have been detained by respondents no.1 to 7 against their will. 2. On notice of this petition being issued to the respondents, respondents no.1 to 15 have filed their affidavit in reply. In the affidavit in reply it is clearly stated by respondents that they have not illegally detained the wife and the children of the petitioner. The police officers have also filed their affidavit in reply highlighting the various steps taken by them for searching the whereabouts of the wife and the children of the petitioner. The affidavit highlights the various press note which had been issued in the local newspapers. It is further stated that all steps have been taken for tracing the whereabouts of the missing lady and her children. According to the respondents, statements of various persons have been recorded which reveal that the wife of the petitioner had obtained the school leaving certificate of her children from the school before her disappearance. The statements, according to the respondents in their affidavit in reply indicate that the wife of the petitioner had herself abandoned the company of the petitioner. It is further stated that the efforts are continuing and as and when the whereabouts are known, appropriate steps would be taken. 4 3. In the light of the attempts made by the respondents-police officers in tracing the whereabouts of the wife and the children, according to this petition need not be kept pending. Suffice it would be to direct them to continue with their efforts with the said zeal and enthusiasm which has been shown by them earlier. We expect the authorities not to relent in their efforts at tracing the whereabouts of the wife and children of the petitioner. In that light of the matter, this writ petition is dismissed with the directions referred to above. ( A.V. POTDAR, J.) ( P.V.HARDAS, J.) amj/criwp885.08