Punjab-Haryana High Court
Ram Bharose vs State Of Haryana & Others on 29 January, 2010
Author: Nirmaljit Kaur
Bench: Nirmaljit Kaur
Crl. Writ Petition No.922 of 2009 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH.
Crl. Writ Petition No.922 of 2009
Date of Decision: 29.01.2010
Ram Bharose
....Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana & others
...Respondents
CORAM : Hon'ble Ms. Justice Nirmaljit Kaur
Present:- Mr. R.S. Mamli, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. P.M. Anand, Addl. A.G., Haryana
for the respondent-State.
Mr. Vivek Goel, Advocate
for respondents No.4 to 12.
*****
1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers may be
allowed to see the judgment ?
2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ?
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the
Digest ?
**
NIRMALJIT KAUR, J. (ORAL)
This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for directing the official respondents to release the detenue Nidhi alias Mohini Rani daughter of Ram Bharose from the illegal custody of private respondent Nos.4 to 12.
Upon notice, respondents No.4 to 12 put in appearance. The State also submitted that they shall produce the alleged detenue, namely, Nidhi alias Mohini Rani in the Court on the next date of hearing. Crl. Writ Petition No.922 of 2009 2
On 20.11.2009, learned counsel for respondents No.4 to 12 submitted that the alleged detenue, namely, Nidhi alias Mohini Rani was married to respondent No.6 and had also delivered a child on 07.11.2009. The matter was adjourned for today.
Today, the girl Nidhi alias Mohini Rani is present in the Court along with her husband Anil Kumar. The petitioner-Ram Bharose, father, as well as, the mother Anita wife of Ram Bharose, are also present in the Court. The father, as well as, the mother were allowed to meet the alleged detenue Nidhi alias Mohini Rani, who was carrying a child of about 2 ½ months old in her lap. The girl Nidhi alias Mohini Rani stated that she was happily residing in her matrimonial home and refused to either talk to her mother or accompany her.
The present petition is a petition of Habeas Corpus. The age of Nidhi has not been established. However, she herself is now a mother of 2½ months old child. Nidhi alias Mohini Rani, refused to accompany the petitioner and stated that she is happily residing with her husband Anil Kumar son of Devi Parsad. Thus, no direction can be issued to force the girl to accompany the petitioner.
Accordingly, the present petition is dismissed and in the facts of this case, Nidhi alias Mohini Rani is at liberty to decide her own fate.
(NIRMALJIT KAUR) 29.01.2010 JUDGE gurpreet