Stating that the police cannot shield rich and influential people,the Bombay High Court on Monday pulled up the state police for failing to trace a businessman who had fled with his four-year-old son. The boys mother,Priti Chug had moved HC after Bunty Chug fled with their four-and-half-year old son Sujal on November 14,2008,the day Priti was supposed to have got access of the child following earlier court orders. Bunty Chug is into power loom business in the city. Justice Ranjana Desai and Justice Rajesh Ketkar expressed unhappiness after the police informed that they are yet to get any clue about the whereabouts of the father and child. How can you be so ineffective? When a small child is missing you should put entire efforts to trace him, Justice Desai remarked. Justice Desai observed that the investigation doesnt seem to be a concentrated one and they cannot absolve themselves from their duties on grounds of work load. You cannot shield him, Justice Desai said after observing that the absconder was into power loom business in Bhiwandi and had to be accessible one way or the other. The court was also informed that Bunty had married another lady and bailable warrants have been issued against him. Police informed the court that the lady was questioned but she did not know Buntys whereabouts. The court also asked why the police have not tapped the absconders phones. Police sub inspector Shantikumar Patil from central police station Ulhasnagar in his affidavit has stated that they have forwarded the absconders passport number through the CID to the Look-Out Cell of the international airport. Patil stated that despite repeated request Buntys father Shankar (who filed the missing person complaint) and brother did not deposit the Buntys passport. They,however,later deposited their passports following lower court directions. Patil states that there have been no fruitful results after questioning the neighbours,servants,relatives and family members. According to Pritis petition,she got married to Bunty in 2002 after which she started facing harassment from the family. Sujal was born in June 2002 but the harassment continued Priti claims. Priti states that in August 2007,she was forced to leave the house with her son and later in October,Bunty and his family forcefully took away the child. After numerous court proceedings in the lower court and the high court,it was ordered in October 2008 that the custody should be handed over to the mother. Buntys advocate then got a stay on it for four weeks. On the day when Bunty was supposed to provide access of the child to Priti on November 14,he absconded with the child. Priti now fears that he might leave the country with her child as he has connections in Dubai and Germany. Priti also informed the court about a letter sent to the earlier HC judge by Bunty on November 18 in which he stated that he is taking away the child.
