JUDGMENT :

ASHWANI KUMAR SINGH, J.

Heard Mr. Sanjay Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Prabhu Narain Sharma, learned counsel for the State.

2. This application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner for issuance of a writ in the nature of habeas corpus for directing the respondent authorities to recover the daughter of the petitioner and produce her before the Court.

3. The contention of the petitioner is that his daughter Priyanka Kumari was residing in a girls’ hostel situated at Boring Canal Road, Patna. She was doing a private job after completion of her MBA course. On 11.04.2021, he tried to contact her mobile number but her number could not be connected. Ultimately, he went to her hostel but she was found absent. On inquiry, he came to know that she was absent from the hostel since last 15 days. The lock of the door of her room was broken with the consent of the caretaker of the girls’ hostel and during search of her room, a marriage certificate was found. A perusal of the marriage certificate disclosed that his daughter had married one Ambuj Kumar Srivastava (respondent no. 5). When he called respondent no. 5 on his mobile number and tried to know the whereabout of his daughter, he did not give any satisfactory reply. He suspected that his daughter might have been taken to Himachal Pradesh and killed by the respondent no. 5.

4. Mr. Sanjay Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that on 13.05.2021 the petitioner submitted a written report to the Officer Incharge of Buddha Colony Police Station making allegations against respondent no. 5 and his parents. On the basis of the said written report, Buddha Colony P.S. Case No. 160 of 2021 dated 13.03.2021 was registered under Sections 363, 365, 420 and 406 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code against respondent no. 5 (Ambuj Kumar Srivastava), his mother (Sunita Devi) and his father (Suresh Prasad). He submitted that since the date of institution of the FIR, the petitioner is running from pillar to post for the recovery of his daughter but all his efforts have gone in vain. He contended that the police have mechanically submitted chargesheet against the respondent no. 5 for the offences under which the First Information Report (for

short ‘FIR’) was registered and the learned Jurisdictional Magistrate has taken cognizance of the offences under Sections 363, 365, 420, 406 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code vide order dated 15.07.2021. However, the daughter of the petitioner has not been recovered till date. He submitted that under the circumstances, the petitioner has no option but to approach this Court for the redressal of his grievance.

5. On the other hand, Mr. Prabhu Narain Sharma, learned counsel appearing for the State submitted that the report of the police submitted under Sections 173(2) Cr.P.C. is only against the respondent no. 5. The investigation is still continuing. He contended that a perusal of the police report as contained in Annexure ‘3’ to the writ petition would suggest that the chargesheet against respondent no. 5 was submitted as the period of 60 days from the date of his arrest was going to be completed and the non-submission of the report would have resulted in grant of compulsive bail under Section 167 Clause (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. He contended that in the present case, the police have not arrived at any final conclusion as to whether the victim (daughter of the petitioner) is in illegal confinement of the respondent no. 5 or not. He further contended that the writ of habeas corpus would not be maintainable in such cases as it is not a case of illegal detention rather it is a case of law and order problem and the police are making sincere efforts to investigate the case from all angles.

6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and carefully perused the records. At the outset, it is to be noted that for an incident which is said to have taken place on 11.04.2021, t