Writ Petition No. 203 of 2024 · Supreme Court

4. Shri Puneet Chandra, learned counsel for the respondent no.4 submits that he has no instructions in the matter and the respondent no.4 has not contacted him since 26.03.2025 after the court had passed the order on the said date for production of the detenue/child on 27.03.2025. However the father of the respondent no.4 had called on his mobile on 14.04.2025 from Mobile No.8756447843 at about 9.14 p.m., which was picked by his colleague Shri Saurabh Yadav, Advocate and he asked him to look after this case on behalf of respondent no.4, but he had declined to do so stating that if the whereabouts of the respondent no.4 and the detenue are not known he cannot appear and assist the court.

5. Shri Puneet Chandra, learned counsel for the respondent no.4 states that he has only appeared to inform the aforesaid facts, otherwise since he is not in the contact of respondent no.4 and he has also not contacted him, therefore, he is not appearing on his behalf and appearing only to assist the court.

6. In view of above, it is apparent that the respondent no.4 is deliberately neither appearing before this court nor producing the detenue/child.

7. It is also noticed that the respondent no.4 had earlier taken various grounds for not producing the detenue/child. This court on 06.01.2025 found authenticity of the medical certificate doubtful, which was produced on account of absence of the detenue on the ground that he met with an accident. However the date was fixed on 17.01.2025. On 17.01.2025 again the respondent no.4 had not produced the detenue on the ground that on account of illness, but the ground taken of illness by eating ice cream was not mentioned in the affidavit. However, this court fixed the date on 27.01.2025 for production of the detenue/child. But even then the detenue was not produced and the respondent no.4 preferred Special Appeal Defective No.55 of 2025. The Special Appeal was dismissed by means of order dated 10.02.2025 on the undertaking of the respondent no.4 that he will produce the detenue/child before the writ court on 28.02.2025. On 28.02.2025 also the detenue was not produced and it was informed that another Special Appeal bearing No.58 of 2025 filed by the respondent no.4 3 was also dismissed on 10.02.2025. On 28.02.2025 an exemption application was moved without any affidavit on account of non availability of reservation. Then the date was fixed on 25.03.2025 for production of the detenue.

8. On 25.03.2025 again the respondent no.4 appeared but he did not produce the detenue. He moved two applications; one application for exemption from appearance of detenue and another for disposal of the petition on the ground that he is ready to take the deponent with him to live with her and the child. However the deponent stated that unless the detenue is produced she is not ready to go with the respondent no.4, otherwise she has no objection as when he is not complying the orders passed by this court and undertakings given by him he may do any thing to harass her. She has already stated before this court on earlier occasions that on account of trivial family disputes she is residing separately and she is ready to live with the husband.

9. This court also looking to the conduct of the respondent no.4, in which he is violating not only the orders passed by this court, but also undertakings given by him for production of child before this court and on the undertaking of respondent no.4 passed order on 25.03.2025 that he will produce the child on the next date on 26.03.2025 and allowed the exemption application at a cost of Rs.5,000/- and the case was fixed on 26.03.2025. On 26.03.2025 the respondent no.4 had not appeared and also not produced detenue/child.

10. Learned counsel for the respondent no.4 had informed on the said date that after the order was passed on 25.03.2025 he had not contacted him and despite subsequently repeated calls made by the counsel also he had not picked up the phone and switched off the phone. Even thereafter in spite of the observations of this court in order dated 28.03.2025 that in case the detenue is not produced in terms of the earlier orders as well as the undertakings given by him non-bailable warrant would be issued against the respondent no.4, this court taking a lenient view and statement of the respondent no.4 and application moved by him and also the statement of the deponent to settle the dispute amicably had issued only bailable warrant on 26.03.2025 on both the addresses i.e. on Ayodhya and Pune. The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ayodhya vide report dated 15.04.2025 had informed that the bailable warrant could not be executed as respondent no.4 is residing in Pune. The report of Pune was not received by that date on 16.04.2025, therefore, the date was fixed for today calling the report from the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pune, Maharashtra. Today the aforesaid report sent by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pune has been received.

11. In view of above and considering the over all facts and circumstances of the case it is apparent that the respondent no.4 is deliberately avoiding the production of detenue/child before this court and neither complying the orders passed by this court nor 4 the undertakings given by him and playing with the court and neither appearing nor producing the alleged detenue/child and allowing him to meet the mother, whereas the child is of about 2 years and 8 months old and the custody of such a minor child should have been with the mother.

12. From the aforesaid facts it also appears that the parents of the respondent no.4 are also helping him to avoid the production of child, the mother of the respondent no.4 has lodged a report of missing on 27.03.2025 w.e.f. 26.03.2025, whereas as per statement of respondent no.4 on 25.03.2025, the detenue was at Pune and they had not appeared on 26.03.2025 and on consent of learned counsel for the parties on 27.03.2025 before Hon'ble Supreme Court the matter was referred to Mediation but he did not appear as informed by learned counsel for the petitioner and his father would not have contacted the counsel of respondent no.4 for pursuing this case, if it was so. Thus this court has no option except to issue non-bailable warrant against the respondent no.4 with a direction to the Chief Judicial Magistrates concerned to get executed the same and if required the higher Police authorities may be asked to take appropriate steps for execution of the non- bailable warrant because now it is not a mere case of unlawful custody of the detenue/child but a serious threat also appears to the detenue because he appears to have decided not to produce the detenue/child and allow the detenue/child to meet his mother in any condition. In case the non-bailable warrant would not be executed, this court will also have no other option except to issue a direction for proceedings under Section 84 and 85 of Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.

13. Let non-bailable warrants be issued against the respondent no.4 not only at his address of Pune through Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pune, Maharasthra, but also at his address at Ayodhya through Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ayodhya/Faizabad, where his parental house is situated.

14. List on 21st of May, 2025. " Order dated 21.05.2025 "In deference to the order dated 01.05.2025 passed by this court the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ayodhya has sent a report dated 19.05.2025 with the intimation that the non bailable warrant could not be executed because as per report of the Police Station he is residing out for the last many years in connection with his employment. The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pune has sent a report dated 15.05.2025 with the intimation that the non bailable warrant could not be executed because as per report of the Police the missing report has already been lodged and he could not be traced in the boundaries of Nanekarwari. Shri Alok Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the father of the detenue had not appeared in the 5 Mediation proceedings before the Hon'ble Supreme Court on subsequent dates, therefore, the mediation has also failed. He further submits that this court had directed to the Chief Judicial Magistrate to get non bailable warrant executed and if required the higher police authorities may be asked for execution of the non bailable warrant, but it appears that the higher police authorities have not been asked for taking appropriate steps for execution of the the non bailable warrant, otherwise it could have been executed. In view of above, the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pune is directed to ask the Commissioner of Police, Pune for search of the respondent no.4 alongwith the detenue and take appropriate steps for execution of the non bailable warrant against the respondent no.4 and the status of the inquiry/investigation in the case of missing report of the father of the alleged detenue be also informed to this court looking to the threat to the detenue expressed in the aforesaid order dated 01.05.2025. List on 12th of June, 2025. Let a copy of this order be sent to the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pune forthwith. "

2. In pursuance of earlier order, letter dated 09.06.2025 of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pune along with report dated 26.05.2025 of Shri Sandeep Doiphode, Deputy Commission of Police, Crime Pimpri Chinchwad, Pune is available on record.

3. It has been informed to this Court through aforesaid letters that the missing report of Gautam Sharma S/o Ashok Kumar Sharma, R/o Manudih Pure Madhai Rai H/o Manoodih, PS- Khandasa, Amaniganj, Milkipur, District- Ayodhya and present address- Electro New Matrix Pvt. Ltd., Kharabwadi (Chakan) Etka Nagar, Pune (Maharashtra) is missing. His missing report was given on 27.03.2025 by his mother, namely- Kusum Ashok Sharma, aged about 50 years, residing near Ganesh Temple, Ektanagar, Chakan, Tal Khed, District- Pune along with the detenue (child).

4. In pursuance of direction of this Court, statements of Mukesh Raju Yadav, Amirbhai, Sardarbhai, Ashok Ramjatan Sharma and Smt. Kusum Ashok Sharma were recorded. In order to ensure the compliance of the non-bailable warrant, the news is also published in Tapas Patrika and circulated in all police stations in Pimpri Chinchwad rural of Pune City and request has also been sent to the Senior Police Inspector, Control Room to broadcast the aforesaid news. Another officer has also been directed to search for missing person. 6

5. The letter dated 09.06.2025 of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pune along with the report dated 26.05.2025 of Shri Sandeep Doiphode, Deputy Commission of Police, Crime Pimpri Chinchwad, Pune is reproduced as under: Letter dated 09.06.2025 ''O. No. 1076/2025 Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Pune. Date: 09/06/2025 From, Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pune. To, The Hon'ble Registrar General, High Court Judicature Criminal Revisional Jurisdiction, Nyaya at Allahabad, Marg, Canton, Cantonment, Prayagraj, Uttar Pradesh - 211001 Email: [email protected] Subject:- Service of Communication of Hon'ble Court's order dated 21/05/2025 in Habeas Corpus Writ Petition No.203/2024. Respected Sir. With reference to the subject noted above, I have honour to submit Service report of Communication of Hon'ble Court's order dated 21/05/2025 for compliance in Habeas Corpus Writ Petition No.203/2024. As per the directions given by the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court for search of the Respondent No.4 and the denue, the Dy. Commissioner of Police, Crime, Pimpri Chinchwad, has given his detailed reply regarding the status of inquiry / investigation in the case of missing report of the father of the alleged detenue. Accordingly, I submit the Notice along-with original report of Dy. Commissioner of Police, Crime, Pimpri Chinchwad, Pune. Submitted with respect. Yours faithfully, Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pune. 7 Report dated 26.05.2025 'To, Hon. Chief Judicial Magistrate Chief Court, Pune. Subject:- Regarding compliance with the order in Writ Petition No. 203/2025 of at Hon.Allahabad High Court, Lucknow Bench. Reference: Ref. No. 696/2025 Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Pune dated 26/05/2025. With respect to the above-mentioned subject and reference, it is respectfully submitted that, In the Writ Petition No. 203/2025 at Hon. Allahabad High Court, Lucknow Bench, The Hon. Allahabad High Court has directed to search of the respondent no.4 alongwith denue and take appropriate steps for execution of the non-bailable warrant against the respondent no 4 and submit status report regarding missing. As per directions report is being submitted as below:

1. Police Station Chakan, Pimpri Chinchwad Police

3. Investigating Officer Human Missing Register No

4. Informer

7. Date, Time & Place Disappearance Date & Time of Report Filing Description of Missing Persons Commissionerate. M.S. Ladke, Police Head Constable No. 3216, Chakan Police Station. Kusum Ashok Sharma, Age 50, Residing near Ganesh Temple, Ektanagar, Chakan, Tal. Khed, Dist. Pune. 26/03/2025 at approx. 10:00 AM from residence, Ektanagar, Chakan. 27/03/2025 at 12:10 PM

1. Gautam Ashok Sharma, Age 28 years, Residing near Ganesh Temple, Ektanagar, Chakan, Medium build, wheatish complexion, round face, straight nose, height 5'6", old scar on

9. Incident Summary Details Statements 8 forehead, Clothing: Chocolate-colored shirt and black jeans, Education: B.Sc., speaks Marathi, Hindi, English, Mobile No.: 7410543629

2. Anant Gautam Sharma (Son), Age 3 years, Medium build, fair complexion, round face, straight nose, height 3 feet, like "Papa", Can speak words "Mummy", "Didi", Clothing: White shirt and blue pants. The informant reported that the missing person left the house with his young son without informing anyone. Based on this, a missing report was filed. Statements have been recorded after detailed inquiries from the following individuals residing near the place where the missing person lived:

1. Mukesh Raju Yadav, resident of Ektanagar, Chakan

2. Amirbhai Ektanagar, Chakan Sardarbhai Shaikh,

3. Ashok Ramjatan Sharma, (Father of missing person) age 59 years profession: bag-selling business, Ektanagar, Gat No. 852, near Ganesh Temple, Chakan, Tal. Khed, Dist. Pune, Mobile No. 7985171262 resident

4. Mrs. Kusum Ashok Sharma, age 52, resident of profession: housewife, Ektanagar, Gat No. 852, near Ganesh Temple, Chakan, Tal. Khed, Dist. Pune, Mobile No. 8756447843

10. Efforts Taken Chakan Police Station

1. Shared Tapas Patrika with all police stations in Pimpri Chinchwad, Pune Rural, and Pune City.

2. Sent broadcast request to Senior Police Inspector, Control Room. Directed beat

3. officers and investigation teams to search for missing 9 persons

4. Sent report to Commissioner of Police, Pimpri Chinchwad for media publication

5. Sent mobile CDR, SDR, tower location request. Mobile is switched off.

6. Communicated with local cable operators for broadcasting missing information

7. Enquiries made with close relatives and informants. Missing persons not traced yet. Efforts are being made to trace the missing persons by making enquries and using technical data.

11. Conclusion We are making all efforts to trace the missing persons and execute the court warrant. Enclosed:- Reports from Chakan Police Station. Dy. Commissioner of Police, Crime Pimpri Chinchwad'' (Sandeep Doiphode)

6. It is evident from the earlier order passed by this Court that the respondent no.4 is deliberately avoiding the proceedings. An undertaking was given by him before the Division Bench in the special appeal but he violated the aforesaid undertaking and thereafter, non-bailable warrant was issued against him.

7. Accordingly, List this case on 01.08.2025 at 11:30 AM.

8. Director General of Police, Maharashtra is directed to initiate the proceedings under Section 82 and 83 CrPC/84 and 85 BNSS against the respondent no.4 and ensure the presence of respondent no.4 before this Court on the next date.

9. On the next date, appropriate order shall be passed for registering a criminal contempt against the respondent no.4.

10. Senior Registrar of this Court is directed to communicate this order to the Director General of Police, Maharashtra as well 10 as Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pune for necessary compliance, forthwith. Order Date :- 12.6.2025 V. Sinha

4. Shri Puneet Chandra, learned counsel for the respondent no.4 submits that he has no instructions in the matter and the respondent no.4 has not contacted him since 26.03.2025 after the court had passed the order on the said date for production of the detenue/child on 27.03.2025. However the father of the respondent no.4 had called on his mobile on 14.04.2025 from Mobile No.8756447843 at about 9.14 p.m., which was picked by his colleague Shri Saurabh Yadav, Advocate and he asked him to look after this case on behalf of respondent no.4, but he had declined to do so stating that if the whereabouts of the respondent no.4 and the detenue are not known he cannot appear and assist the court.

5. Shri Puneet Chandra, learned counsel for the respondent no.4 states that he has only appeared to inform the aforesaid facts, otherwise since he is not in the contact of respondent no.4 and he has also not contacted him, therefore, he is not appearing on his behalf and appearing only to assist the court.

6. In view of above, it is apparent that the respondent no.4 is deliberately neither appearing before this court nor producing the detenue/child.

7. It is also noticed that the respondent no.4 had earlier taken various grounds for not producing the detenue/child. This court on 06.01.2025 found authenticity of the medical certificate doubtful, which was produced on account of absence of the detenue on the ground that he met with an accident. However the date was fixed on 17.01.2025. On 17.01.2025 again the respondent no.4 had not produced the detenue on the ground that on account of illness, but the ground taken of illness by eating ice cream was not mentioned in the affidavit. However, this court fixed the date on 27.01.2025 for production of the detenue/child. But even then the detenue was not produced and the respondent no.4 preferred Special Appeal Defective No.55 of 2025. The Special Appeal was dismissed by means of order dated 10.02.2025 on the undertaking of the respondent no.4 that he will produce the detenue/child before the writ court on 28.02.2025. On 28.02.2025 also the detenue was not produced and it was informed that another Special Appeal bearing No.58 of 2025 filed by the respondent no.4 3 was also dismissed on 10.02.2025. On 28.02.2025 an exemption application was moved without any affidavit on account of non availability of reservation. Then the date was fixed on 25.03.2025 for production of the detenue.

8. On 25.03.2025 again the respondent no.4 appeared but he did not produce the detenue. He moved two applications; one application for exemption from appearance of detenue and another for disposal of the petition on the ground that he is ready to take the deponent with him to live with her and the child. However the deponent stated that unless the detenue is produced she is not ready to go with the respondent no.4, otherwise she has no objection as when he is not complying the orders passed by this court and undertakings given by him he may do any thing to harass her. She has already stated before this court on earlier occasions that on account of trivial family disputes she is residing separately and she is ready to live with the husband.

9. This court also looking to the conduct of the respondent no.4, in which he is violating not only the orders passed by this court, but also undertakings given by him for production of child before this court and on the undertaking of respondent no.4 passed order on 25.03.2025 that he will produce the child on the next date on 26.03.2025 and allowed the exemption application at a cost of Rs.5,000/- and the case was fixed on 26.03.2025. On 26.03.2025 the respondent no.4 had not appeared and also not produced detenue/child.

10. Learned counsel for the respondent no.4 had informed on the said date that after the order was passed on 25.03.2025 he had not contacted him and despite subsequently repeated calls made by the counsel also he had not picked up the phone and switched off the phone. Even thereafter in spite of the observations of this court in order dated 28.03.2025 that in case the detenue is not produced in terms of the earlier orders as well as the undertakings given by him non-bailable warrant would be issued against the respondent no.4, this court taking a lenient view and statement of the respondent no.4 and application moved by him and also the statement of the deponent to settle the dispute amicably had issued only bailable warrant on 26.03.2025 on both the addresses i.e. on Ayodhya and Pune. The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ayodhya vide report dated 15.04.2025 had informed that the bailable warrant could not be executed as respondent no.4 is residing in Pune. The report of Pune was not received by that date on 16.04.2025, therefore, the date was fixed for today calling the report from the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pune, Maharashtra. Today the aforesaid report sent by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pune has been received.

11. In view of above and considering the over all facts and circumstances of the case it is apparent that the respondent no.4 is deliberately avoiding the production of detenue/child before this court and neither complying the orders passed by this court nor 4 the undertakings given by him and playing with the court and neither appearing nor producing the alleged detenue/child and allowing him to meet the mother, whereas the child is of about 2 years and 8 months old and the custody of such a minor child should have been with the mother.

12. From the aforesaid facts it also appears that the parents of the respondent no.4 are also helping him to avoid the production of child, the mother of the respondent no.4 has lodged a report of missing on 27.03.2025 w.e.f. 26.03.2025, whereas as per statement of respondent no.4 on 25.03.2025, the detenue was at Pune and they had not appeared on 26.03.2025 and on consent of learned counsel for the parties on 27.03.2025 before Hon'ble Supreme Court the matter was referred to Mediation but he did not appear as informed by learned counsel for the petitioner and his father would not have contacted the counsel of respondent no.4 for pursuing this case, if it was so. Thus this court has no option except to issue non-bailable warrant against the respondent no.4 with a direction to the Chief Judicial Magistrates concerned to get executed the same and if required the higher Police authorities may be asked to take appropriate steps for execution of the non- bailable warrant because now it is not a mere case of unlawful custody of the detenue/child but a serious threat also appears to the detenue because he appears to have decided not to produce the detenue/child and allow the detenue/child to meet his mother in any condition. In case the non-bailable warrant would not be executed, this court will also have no other option except to issue a direction for proceedings under Section 84 and 85 of Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.

13. Let non-bailable warrants be issued against the respondent no.4 not only at his address of Pune through Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pune, Maharasthra, but also at his address at Ayodhya through Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ayodhya/Faizabad, where his parental house is situated.

14. List on 21st of May, 2025. " Order dated 21.05.2025 "In deference to the order dated 01.05.2025 passed by this court the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ayodhya has sent a report dated 19.05.2025 with the intimation that the non bailable warrant could not be executed because as per report of the Police Station he is residing out for the last many years in connection with his employment. The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pune has sent a report dated 15.05.2025 with the intimation that the non bailable warrant could not be executed because as per report of the Police the missing report has already been lodged and he could not be traced in the boundaries of Nanekarwari. Shri Alok Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the father of the detenue had not appeared in the 5 Mediation proceedings before the Hon'ble Supreme Court on subsequent dates, therefore, the mediation has also failed. He further submits that this court had directed to the Chief Judicial Magistrate to get non bailable warrant executed and if required the higher police authorities may be asked for execution of the non bailable warrant, but it appears that the higher police authorities have not been asked for taking appropriate steps for execution of the the non bailable warrant, otherwise it could have been executed. In view of above, the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pune is directed to ask the Commissioner of Police, Pune for search of the respondent no.4 alongwith the detenue and take appropriate steps for execution of the non bailable warrant against the respondent no.4 and the status of the inquiry/investigation in the case of missing report of the father of the alleged detenue be also informed to this court looking to the threat to the detenue expressed in the aforesaid order dated 01.05.2025. List on 12th of June, 2025. Let a copy of this order be sent to the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pune forthwith. "

2. In pursuance of earlier order, letter dated 09.06.2025 of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pune along with report dated 26.05.2025 of Shri Sandeep Doiphode, Deputy Commission of Police, Crime Pimpri Chinchwad, Pune is available on record.

3. It has been informed to this Court through aforesaid letters that the missing report of Gautam Sharma S/o Ashok Kumar Sharma, R/o Manudih Pure Madhai Rai H/o Manoodih, PS- Khandasa, Amaniganj, Milkipur, District- Ayodhya and present address- Electro New Matrix Pvt. Ltd., Kharabwadi (Chakan) Etka Nagar, Pune (Maharashtra) is missing. His missing report was given on 27.03.2025 by his mother, namely- Kusum Ashok Sharma, aged about 50 years, residing near Ganesh Temple, Ektanagar, Chakan, Tal Khed, District- Pune along with the detenue (child).

4. In pursuance of direction of this Court, statements of Mukesh Raju Yadav, Amirbhai, Sardarbhai, Ashok Ramjatan Sharma and Smt. Kusum Ashok Sharma were recorded. In order to ensure the compliance of the non-bailable warrant, the news is also published in Tapas Patrika and circulated in all police stations in Pimpri Chinchwad rural of Pune City and request has also been sent to the Senior Police Inspector, Control Room to broadcast the aforesaid news. Another officer has also been directed to search for missing person. 6

5. The letter dated 09.06.2025 of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pune along with the report dated 26.05.2025 of Shri Sandeep Doiphode, Deputy Commission of Police, Crime Pimpri Chinchwad, Pune is reproduced as under: Letter dated 09.06.2025 ''O. No. 1076/2025 Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Pune. Date: 09/06/2025 From, Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pune. To, The Hon'ble Registrar General, High Court Judicature Criminal Revisional Jurisdiction, Nyaya at Allahabad, Marg, Canton, Cantonment, Prayagraj, Uttar Pradesh - 211001 Email: [email protected] Subject:- Service of Communication of Hon'ble Court's order dated 21/05/2025 in Habeas Corpus Writ Petition No.203/2024. Respected Sir. With reference to the subject noted above, I have honour to submit Service report of Communication of Hon'ble Court's order dated 21/05/2025 for compliance in Habeas Corpus Writ Petition No.203/2024. As per the directions given by the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court for search of the Respondent No.4 and the denue, the Dy. Commissioner of Police, Crime, Pimpri Chinchwad, has given his detailed reply regarding the status of inquiry / investigation in the case of missing report of the father of the alleged detenue. Accordingly, I submit the Notice along-with original report of Dy. Commissioner of Police, Crime, Pimpri Chinchwad, Pune. Submitted with respect. Yours faithfully, Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pune. 7 Report dated 26.05.2025 'To, Hon. Chief Judicial Magistrate Chief Court, Pune. Subject:- Regarding compliance with the order in Writ Petition No. 203/2025 of at Hon.Allahabad High Court, Lucknow Bench. Reference: Ref. No. 696/2025 Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Pune dated 26/05/2025. With respect to the above-mentioned subject and reference, it is respectfully submitted that, In the Writ Petition No. 203/2025 at Hon. Allahabad High Court, Lucknow Bench, The Hon. Allahabad High Court has directed to search of the respondent no.4 alongwith denue and take appropriate steps for execution of the non-bailable warrant against the respondent no 4 and submit status report regarding missing. As per directions report is being submitted as below:

1. Police Station Chakan, Pimpri Chinchwad Police

3. Investigating Officer Human Missing Register No

4. Informer

7. Date, Time & Place Disappearance Date & Time of Report Filing Description of Missing Persons Commissionerate. M.S. Ladke, Police Head Constable No. 3216, Chakan Police Station. Kusum Ashok Sharma, Age 50, Residing near Ganesh Temple, Ektanagar, Chakan, Tal. Khed, Dist. Pune. 26/03/2025 at approx. 10:00 AM from residence, Ektanagar, Chakan. 27/03/2025 at 12:10 PM

1. Gautam Ashok Sharma, Age 28 years, Residing near Ganesh Temple, Ektanagar, Chakan, Medium build, wheatish complexion, round face, straight nose, height 5'6", old scar on

9. Incident Summary Details Statements 8 forehead, Clothing: Chocolate-colored shirt and black jeans, Education: B.Sc., speaks Marathi, Hindi, English, Mobile No.: 7410543629

2. Anant Gautam Sharma (Son), Age 3 years, Medium build, fair complexion, round face, straight nose, height 3 feet, like "Papa", Can speak words "Mummy", "Didi", Clothing: White shirt and blue pants. The informant reported that the missing person left the house with his young son without informing anyone. Based on this, a missing report was filed. Statements have been recorded after detailed inquiries from the following individuals residing near the place where the missing person lived:

1. Mukesh Raju Yadav, resident of Ektanagar, Chakan

2. Amirbhai Ektanagar, Chakan Sardarbhai Shaikh,

3. Ashok Ramjatan Sharma, (Father of missing person) age 59 years profession: bag-selling business, Ektanagar, Gat No. 852, near Ganesh Temple, Chakan, Tal. Khed, Dist. Pune, Mobile No. 7985171262 resident

4. Mrs. Kusum Ashok Sharma, age 52, resident of profession: housewife, Ektanagar, Gat No. 852, near Ganesh Temple, Chakan, Tal. Khed, Dist. Pune, Mobile No. 8756447843

10. Efforts Taken Chakan Police Station

1. Shared Tapas Patrika with all police stations in Pimpri Chinchwad, Pune Rural, and Pune City.

2. Sent broadcast request to Senior Police Inspector, Control Room. Directed beat

3. officers and investigation teams to search for missing 9 persons

4. Sent report to Commissioner of Police, Pimpri Chinchwad for media publication

5. Sent mobile CDR, SDR, tower location request. Mobile is switched off.

6. Communicated with local cable operators for broadcasting missing information

7. Enquiries made with close relatives and informants. Missing persons not traced yet. Efforts are being made to trace the missing persons by making enquries and using technical data.

11. Conclusion We are making all efforts to trace the missing persons and execute the court warrant. Enclosed:- Reports from Chakan Police Station. Dy. Commissioner of Police, Crime Pimpri Chinchwad'' (Sandeep Doiphode)

6. It is evident from the earlier order passed by this Court that the respondent no.4 is deliberately avoiding the proceedings. An undertaking was given by him before the Division Bench in the special appeal but he violated the aforesaid undertaking and thereafter, non-bailable warrant was issued against him.

7. Accordingly, List this case on 01.08.2025 at 11:30 AM.

8. Director General of Police, Maharashtra is directed to initiate the proceedings under Section 82 and 83 CrPC/84 and 85 BNSS against the respondent no.4 and ensure the presence of respondent no.4 before this Court on the next date.

9. On the next date, appropriate order shall be passed for registering a criminal contempt against the respondent no.4.

10. Senior Registrar of this Court is directed to communicate this order to the Director General of Police, Maharashtra as well 10 as Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pune for necessary compliance, forthwith. Order Date :- 12.6.2025 V. Sinha