IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W. P. (Cr.) No. 332 of 2013 ….. Maqbool Sk. ... …Petitioner -V e r s u s- 1. The State of Jharkhand through the Secretary Home Department, Ranchi 2. The Director General of Police, Ranchi 3. The Inspector General of Police, Dumka 4. The Deputy Inspector General of Police, Dumka 5. The Superintendent of Police, Sahibganj 6. The Officer-In-Charge, Radhanagar(Rajmahal), Sahibganj 7. Moti Ur. Sk.
8. Arshad Sk.
9. Newcon Company Indira Gandhi Airport, New Delhi… ...Respondents CORAM: - HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE APARESH KUMAR SINGH HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE B. B. MANGALMURTI … For the Petitioner : - Mr. J.
P. Jha, Sr. Advocate For the Resp.-State :- Mr. Bhawesh Kumar SC-II … 31/12.12.2017 The instant writ petition was preferred seeking production of minor son of the petitioner namely Belal Sk. who was allured and enticed by the respondent no. 6 and 7 on 11.01.2012 and taken away for providing job without the consent of the petitioner.
2. According to the petitioner, the boy was minor aged 17 years and thereafter despite his best efforts, custody of the child has not be restored.
3. Notices were issued in the writ petition on 21.04.2014 upon the respondents. Counter affidavit was filed initially by the SDPO, Rajmahal. Respondent-State took further time to file supplementary counter affidavit as it appears that the respondent investigating authorities had not done enough for apprehending the accused persons. Subsequent affidavit taken note of in the order dated 22.06.2015 would show that the accused namely Motiur Sk. was arrested and sent to the jail custody. His confessional statement was recorded, as per which, victim boy Belal Sk. has been sent along with Arsad Sk. to Delhi through a placement agency. However, efforts made by the Investigating Officer to trace the boy with the placement agency did not yield any fruitful information. The Investigating Officer had doubts about the placement of the boy with the agency. This Court directed the Superintendent of Police, Sahibganj to file an affidavit regarding the steps taken for recovery of the victim boy Belal Sk. and also for apprehension of the accused Motiur Sk. on the said date. Affidavits were filed thereafter again indicating certain steps taken 2. in that direction. Investigating authorities reported that raids have been made in the house of the co-accused Arshad Sk. and since he was not found, steps were taken under Sections 82 & 83 of the Criminal Procedure Code, as recorded in the order dated 05.10.2015. This Court adjourned the matter with a direction upon the respondent authorities to make contact with higher officials of Delhi to help in the recovery of the boy. Correspondences were later on made by the Superintendent of Police, Sahibganj to the Deputy Commissioner of Police, South East District, Delhi requesting him to take steps in that regard. Arsad Sk. was later on arrested, but he could not provide any information, which could lead to the recovery of the victim boy. This was taken note of in the order dated 11.01.2016. Certain directions were passed thereafter in the matter of investigation and recovery of the victim boy as nothing concrete had been brought on record. Charge sheet has been submitted thereafter on 31.08.2015 bearing no. 120 of 2015 under Sections 365, 371 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code. On 03.08.2016, this Court upon perusal of the affidavit dated 01.08.2016 directed the Superintendent of Police, Sahibganj to take necessary steps by using modern technology to find out and search the victim and submit a report. He was further directed to obtain the status of Radhanagar (Rajmahal) P. S. Case No. 228 of 2012. The Court also directed the counsel for the petitioner to file a detailed affidavit by the elder brother of the victim namely Kalu Sk. @ Mansoor Sk. who accompanied the victim to Delhi.
4. It appears that such direction was not complied by the petitioner, though last indulgence was granted on 17.07.2017. When the matter was taken up on 01.11.2017, counsel for the State took time to file latest update in relation to the recovery of the victim boy. As per the supplementary affidavit filed thereafter and taken note of in our order dated 07.11.2017, the Investigating Officer has made all efforts to trace the victim boy Belal Sk. by employing modern technology and loading the incidence on the portal “Khoya Paya” relating to missing persons. For better appreciation, the order dated 07.11.2017 is quoted hereinunder:- “Respondent State has filed a supplementary counter affidavit in the matter. It is stated that the Investigating Officer of the case has made all efforts to trace Belal Sk by use of modern technology and the case has also been loaded on the portal “Khoya Paya” relating to missing persons. The Investigating Officer has taken 3. statements of two witnesses who had gone to work with Belal Sk namely Alamgir Shekh S/o Monardi Shekh and Allauddin Sk. S/o Ajam Sk. on 15.10.2016 and 30.6.2017. Despite search made on the portal by using Child I.D. No. 9171, there is no trace of the missing boy. Efforts are being made in conjunction with Police Stations in New Delhi for tracing out the victim boy. The Investigating Officer has pasted pamphlets with all description and photograph of missing boy Belal Sk at all important places of all police stations of Sahibganj. The D.P.R.O, Sahibganj has been requested by the Investigating Officer to publish the details of the missing boy in leading national and local newspaper by letter dated 3.11.2017. Besides that the case regarding Belal Shekh lodged by his father Makbul Shekh being Radhanagar (Rajmahal) P.S. Case No. 228 of 2012 corresponding to G.R.No. 416 of 2012 has been committed to the Court of Sessions and is pending trial before the learned Sessions Judge-I, Rajmahal being S.T. No. 45 of 2016 under Section 365, 371 read with Section 34 of the I.P.C where in three witnesses have been examined and next date is on 12.12.2017. Efforts for recovery is still going on. Learned counsel for the Respondent State also points out that the order passed on 3.8.2016 remains to be complied on the part of the petitioner. Learned Senior Counsel representing petitioner seeks to obtain instruction and respond on that part of the order. Learned counsel for the Respondent State on instruction by the Superintendent of Police, Sahibganj, Mr. P. Murugan, present in the Court in another matter W.P.(Cr.) No. 205 of 2017, submits that further progress report giving conclusive picture of the matter would be filed within a period of 4 weeks. Accordingly, place the matter in the week of 11 th December, 2017. ”
5. The extract quoted above shows that trial in respect of accused persons under Sections 365, 371 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code is still going on before the learned Court of Sessions Judge-I, Rajmahal.
6. Today, counsel for the State has placed supplementary counter affidavit filed on 11.12.2017 pursuant to our previous order. It indicates that Superintendent of Police, Sahibganj directed the SDPO, Rajmahal to submit the progress report in connection with Radhanagar (Rajmahal) P. S. Case No. 228 of 2012. The same was submitted on 30.11.2017 (Annexure-A). Superintendent of Police, Sahibganj requested the Additional Director General of Police, Crime Investigation Branch, Jharkhand, Ranchi to make arrangement to publish about the victim Belal Sk. in the every district of every State in the C.I.G. of India vide Memo No. 722/D.C.B. Dated 21.11.2017. He has also directed the I.O. to take necessary steps for paper publication about missing of the victim Belal Sk. in the leading newspaper of Jharkhand as well as newspaper of 4. other States of India giving details of victim and his photograph with a declaration of reasonable reward on recovery of victim. According to the respondent authorities, efforts are on to recover the boy at the earliest. No such affidavit has however been filed by the petitioner in terms of the order dated 03.08.2016.
7. Learned Senior counsel for the petitioner in the aforesaid detailed factual background and progress of investigation of the case, submits that matter can be disposed of with an appropriate direction upon the investigating authority to conclude the exercise within a time frame. Appropriate direction may also be issued to sufficiently Higher Police Officials to monitor the exercise, so far as it relates to recovery of the boy.
8. Learned counsel for the State submits that all diligent steps have been made since the institution of the case for recovery of the victim boy. The respondent -Investigating Officer and Superintendent of Police, Sahibganj have also not abandoned the exercise, though recovery is yet to be made. On going efforts shall be carried out to ensure that the matter is taken to its logical end.
9. We have considered the submissions of the parties and the detailed factual matrix of the case including the progress in the matter of investigation and recovery of the victim boy Belal Sk.. We find that the accused persons are already facing trial before the learned Court of Sessions Judge-I, Rajmahal in Sessions Trial No. 45 of 2016 under Sections 365, 371 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. Efforts for recovery are also on going and may have not fructified by now. However, in view of the submissions made, we are not inclined to keep the matter pending. The writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the investigating authorities to take all diligent steps in the matter of recovery of the victim boy Belal Sk. as early as possible. The Superintendent of Police, Sahibganj and Deputy Inspector General of Police, Santhal Paragana, Dumka would monitor the progress of the exercise as well. (Aparesh Kumar Singh, J.) (B. B. Mangalmurti J.) Kamlesh/