Judgment
BASANT, J.
The petitioner has come to this Court with this petition for issue of a writ of habeas corpus to search for, trace and produce her husband Shamsuddin. According to her, her husband was working (having his business) in Mumbai. He was found missing from 03.07.2007 That fact was reported to the local police at Mumbai. But the local police allegedly did not register any crime or make any attempt to trace her husband. But the petitioner received a telephone call which made a demand for ransom from her to secure his release. Crime No. 237 of 2009 of Kumbala Police Station was registered under Section 387 r/w 34 I.P.C The petitioner came to this Court on 29.08.2009 with this petition for issue of a writ of habeas corpus complaining that the police have not been able to trace the alleged detenu, her husband, in respect of whom ransom was demanded.
2. This judgment must be read in continuation of the various orders passed earlier by different Benches resting with the order dated 14.06.2010
3. As per the directions of this Court, the Director General of Police is personally monitoring and supervising the investigation. A special investigation team has been constituted. As the alleged detenu was not traced by the efforts made by the Kerala police, the petitioner amended the Writ Petition incorporating a further request that the 4th respondent may be directed to conduct the investigation and trace the alleged detenu. This Court directed the Director General of Police, Kerala as also the 4th respondent to file statements. Such statements have been filed. The matter has come up for hearing now. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as also the learned Government Pleader and the learned Standing Counsel for the C.B.I
4. The last report dated 12.07.2010 filed by Sri. Jacob Punnoose, I.P.S, the Director General of Police, Kerala, narrates the various steps taken by the Kerala Police to conduct a proper investigation and trace the alleged detenu. To put it in a nut shell, the Director General of Police reports that in the course of investigation in Crime No. 237 of 2009 of Kumbala Police Station it is revealed to the Kerala police that the ones who made demands for ransom about which Crime No. 237 of 2009 was registered did not know anything about the disappearance of the alleged detenu. On coming to know of the disappearance of the alleged detenu, they were only trying to make quick and easy money by demanding ransom. Necessary steps were taken by the Kerala Police to trace those who demanded ransom. They were brought to Kerala. They were arrested and produced before the learned Magistrate. According to the Director General of Police, it is the conclusion of the Kerala Police after investigation that the said persons who made demand for ransom are not detaining or confining the alleged detenu. The Director General of Police reported that the Kerala Police have ascertained that the alleged detenu had left from his place of work, ie. Shameem Guest House, Mumbai, on 03.07.2007 at about 11 a.m He left his aboard by informing the others that he was going to collect some money due from somebody. Thereafter he did not return at all. He is involved in other serious crimes including a crime of abduction/kidnapping and murder of a minor child. He is facing indictment in that prosecution. In that prosecution he has absconded and the authorities have not been able to secure his presence in that pending prosecution before the Sessions Court at Pune. The Director General of Police reports that the alleged detenu was in custody in that crime for a long period of time exceeding 1 = years. He was sick. He had some renal problem. A transplantation has been done. His release on bail was secured long later. All possible efforts within the command of the Kerala police have been made. But the alleged detenu has not been traced. The Director General of Police, in these circumstances, prayed that the investigation may be entrusted to other agencies which have better infrastructure and resources to meet the challenge in a challenging investigation like the instant one. In short, the Director General of Police has in unambiguous terms, accepted the inability of the Kerala police on account of various circumstances to effectively complete the investigation and furnish to the Court authentic information as to what has or must have happened to the alleged detenu.
5. This Court contemplated entrustment of the investigation with the 4th respondent - the Central Bureau of Investigation. The learned Standing Counsel for the C.B.I in response to the directions of the Court has filed a reply statement on behalf of the 4th respondent C.B.I In such statement it is submitted that the C.B.I is hard pressed for time. It is difficult for the C.B.I to take up investigation in such a case. This case does not fall within the sweep of rare and exceptional cases warranting investigation by the C.B.I Entrustment of this investigation also to the C.B.I would cause additional strain on the limited resources of the C.B.I The learned Standing Counsel, in these circumstances, submits that the C.B.I may not be called upon to take up this investigation. This submission is made only on account of want of men and material for the C.B.I to undertake such an additional responsibility.
6. We have considered all the relevant inputs. The fact remains that the husband of the petitioner is missing. Indications galore to suggest that he may be under detention/confinement. We are not able to readily accept the conclusion of the local police that those who demanded ransom had nothing to do with the detention/confinement. We express no final opinion, but we do feel that it is too early to swallow their version meekly. The plight of the petitioner cannot be lost sight of. The petitioner is the wife of the alleged detenu and has two minor children in that wedlock. This Court must in a humane and compassionate manner appreciate and consider the plight of the petitioner. Various possibilities and theories have been urged in the reply statement by the Director General of Police. But certainly the petitioner would like to know what has really happened to her husband. Her plight deserves sympathy. It is suggested that the alleged detenu may have met with a violent death at the hands of his adversaries. It is also suggested that he may be absconding to avoid the prospect of indictment in a murder/abduction case. The possibility is also traded that he may, on account of his renal illness and complications, have lost his stable mind and may be admitted in some mental asylum somewhere in the country.
7. A helpless citizen like the petitioner can only look up the State to redress her grievance. We are not satisfied that the investigation has been conducted properly or authentic conclusions reached. We appreciate the grievance of the Kerala Police about inadequate infrastructure to conduct such an investigation outside the State of Kerala. Appreciating the plight of the petitioner and her minor children, and concerned about the interests of justice involved, we feel that the resources of the State must be applied to trace the alleged detenu.
8. We are, in these circumstances, persuaded to direct continuance of investigation by the C.B.I notwithstanding the reluctance/unwillingness of the C.B.I to take up such an onerous responsibility. We accept the submissions of the Director General of Police that the investigation will have to be concentrated outside the State to effectively resolve the mystery. We accept the submissions of the Director General of Police that the Kerala police does not have adequate structure and resources to effectively apply themselves to the challenge involved in the investigation in this crime.
9. No other agency is investigating now, it is evident. We are, in these circumstances, of the opinion that the 4th respondent C.B.I may be best suited to conduct the investigation in this case. Notwithstanding their expression of reluctance and, may be, their genuine difficulties, we are of opinion that the 4th respondent can be directed to continue and complete the investigation.
10. The burden primarily must be on the State police to conduct the investigation. We do, in these circumstances, direct that the State Government shall afford adequate facilities and conveniences for the 4th respondent-C.B.I to conduct the investigation.
11. In the result:
a) This Writ Petition is allowed;
b) The 4th respondent-C.B.I is directed to take over investigation in Crime No. 237 of 2009 of Kumbala Police Station and make all efforts to trace the alleged detenu, the husband of the petitioner;
c) We direct the State of Kerala to afford all reasonable assistance, facilities and resources to the C.B.I/4th respondent to effectively conduct the investigation; The Director General of Police, Kerala, shall ensure that the case diary is handed over to the 4th respondent forthwith. The 4th respondent may get the matter investigated by an appropriate unit which can handle the investigation effectively.
d) Trimonthly reports shall be submitted to this Court by the C.B.I about the steps taken in investigation and the results achieved.
12. Hand over a copy of this judgment to the learned Standing Counsel for the Central Bureau of Investigation. Hand over a copy of this judgment to the learned Government Pleader also for immediate communication to the Director General of Police.