← Library
High Court of DelhiW.P.(CRL)/3668/2016

Satya Dev Sah v. The State Of NCT Of Delhi & ANR.

2017-10-09Hon'Ble Mr. Justice G.S.Sistani,Hon'Ble Mr. Justice Chander Shekhar2 pages

$~9 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(CRL) 3668/2016 SATYA DEV SAH ..... Petitioner Through:

Mr. Sushil Thakur, Advocate versus THE STATE OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR.

..... Respondents Through:

Mr. Rahul Mehra, Standing Counsel with Mr. Tushar Sannu, Advocates for the State

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S.SISTANI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDER SHEKHAR

O R D E R

% 09.10.2017 This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking production of 36 years old mentally challenged son of the petitioner, who is missing since 12.10.2012.

Notice was issued in the matter on 22.12.2016. The grievance of the petitioner is that, although a complaint was made on 13.10.2012, no steps were taken by the police to trace his missing son, till the present petition was instituted in the year 2016. We may note that after the notice was issued in the matter, Status Reports have been filed, detailing various steps taken to recover the missing son of the petitioner. The Status Reports reveal that information has been flashed on Aakashvani as also on television; various hospitals have been checked; inquiries have been made from

various persons, whose names and addresses have been detailed in the Status Reports; search was also conducted in old age homes and mental hospital in the area and pamphlets have been distributed in various states, including Delhi, Haryana, Punjab, Madhya Pradesh, Uttar Pradesh and Gujarat. A reward for a sum of Rs.20,000/- has also been announced in the matter. Mr. Rahul Mehra, Standing Counsel submits that the reward would be enhanced from Rs.20,000/- to a higher figure.

Taking into consideration the Status Reports, we dispose of the writ petition at this stage with the consent of counsel for the petitioner, with a direction to the State to continue the search of the missing person. A status report would be provided to the petitioner every six weeks by the concerned I.O. We make it clear that in case the petitioner is dissatisfied, he would be at liberty to revive this petition.

G.S.SISTANI, J CHANDER SHEKHAR, J OCTOBER 09, 2017 tp