Ashwani Kumar Singh, J.—Heard Mr. Ashok Kumar Chaudhary, learned senior counsel being assisted by Mr. Anil Kumar Tiwary, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Prabhu Narain Sharma, learned counsel for the State.

2. The instant application has been filed by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ in the nature of habeas corpus directing the respondents to recover and produce his minor daughter, who is missing since 11.08.2017 for which Giriyak, Katrisarai P.S. Case No. 254 of 2017 dated 12.08.2017 was registered under Sections 363 and 365 of the Indian Penal Code.

3. The case of the petitioner is that his daughter aged about 14 years went to Katrisarai Bazar for getting a blouse stitched with a co-villager Priya Devi, aged about 19 years on 11.08.2017 at about 03:00 PM. Since, she did not return home, the petitioner started searching for her, but she could not be traced. Ultimately, a written report was submitted to the Officer-in-Charge, Katrisarai Police Station on 12.08.2017 by the petitioner regarding his missing daughter pursuant to which Katrisarai P.S. Case No. 254 of 2017 dated 12.08.2017 was registered against unknown accused under Sections 363 and 365 of the Indian Penal Code.

4. As the whereabout of the daughter of the petitioner could not be known for over seven months even after the institution of the FIR, the instant application was filed by the petitioner before this Court on 05.04.2018.

5. It is contended by Mr. Ashok Kumar Chaudhary, learned senior counsel for the petitioner that in the instant case, the respondent nos. 2 and 3 have filed one counter affidavit and 14 supplementary counter affidavits stating therein the upto-date status of the investigation of the case from time to time. He contended that though more than three years have elapsed since the date of the institution of the FIR, the police have not been able to trace the victim girl. He submitted that though some efforts have been made by the police during investigation of the case to find out the missing daughter of the petitioner, they are not sufficient.

6. On the other hand, Mr. Prabhu Narain Sharma, learned counsel appearing for the State submitted that despite sincere and continuous efforts by the police during the last more than three years, they have not been able to recover the victim girl. He contended that during investigation of the case, the police went to several places and arrested some of the suspects, but no clue of the victim girl could be found till today. He submitted that pursuant to the direction of this Court, a special investigating team was constituted by the Superintendent of Police for searching the victim and arresting an accused, namely, Suraj Kumar at his suspected places of hiding in the State of Delhi, Haryana and Rajasthan and the special police team conducted raids at various places, neither the victim could be recovered so far nor the suspected accused Suraj Kumar could be arrested. He contended that the sincere efforts made by the police in investigation cannot be doubted. He urged that under the circumstances no writ in the nature of habeas corpus can be issued by the Court because there is no certainty as to whether the victim is in illegal detention or not. There is also no certainty about the illegal detention of the victim either by the police or by any particular person or any other authority.

7. In reply, Mr. Chaudhary, learned senior counsel for the petitioner submitted that since the petitioner has no other equally efficacious remedy available to him for the redressal of his grievance, he has invoked the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. He contended that the writ petition should be kept pending before this Court till the recovery of the missing daughter of the petitioner.

8. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and carefully perused the materials on record.

9. It would be manifest from the record that the instant