AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
(Made by A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA J.)
Learned Additional Public Prosecutor, based on the status report filed by the second respondent, submitted that the preliminary investigation reveals that the wife of the petitioner was frequently speaking to a person who was in possession of mobile number 7505221168. He further submitted that though the petitioner’s wife was said to have left for Odisha on 20.01.2026, as per the CDR analysis, her mobile phone’s tower location remained at Rajakulam till 02.02.2026 at about 10.46 a.m. Thereafter, she travelled by train and reached Odisha on 04.02.2026 at about 08.08 a.m. The CDR analysis further reveals that even after reaching Odisha, she continued to communicate with her husband over phone till 01.03.2026. Subsequently, on 02.03.2026, her mobile phone was switched off.
He further submitted that the person with whom the petitioner’s wife was frequently speaking was enquired about her whereabouts. However, he failed to provide any proper response and merely stating that it was a wrong number, disconnected the call. Thereafter, his mobile phone was also found to be switched off from May 2026 onwards.
From the status report, we find that after May 2026, no further progress has been shown in the investigation. This is a case where the wife of the petitioner has gone along with another person, taking her three year old daughter with her, which renders them vulnerable to crime.
The respondents shall continue with the investigation, ascertain the whereabouts of the petitioner’s wife and daughter and produce them before this Court. It is made clear that the petitioner shall co-operate with the respondents for further investigation.
Post the matter after three weeks.