Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Jagdish Prasad Yadav vs State (Home) & Ors on 17 July, 2012
Author: Dinesh Maheshwari
Bench: Dinesh Maheshwari
DB Habeas Corpus Petition No.5317/2012.
Jagdish Prasad Yadav Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.
[1]
8
D.B. CIVIL WRIT (HABEAS CORPUS) PETITION NO.5317/2012
Jagdish Prasad Yadav Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.
Date of Order: 17th July 2012
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE DINESH MAHESHWARI
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE NARENDRA KUMAR JAIN-II
Mr. R.S. Choudhary, for the petitioner.
Mr. B.K. Mehar, Government Counsel for the respondent-State.
<><><>
BY THE COURT: (Per Hon'ble Dinesh Maheshwari,J.)
In this petition seeking issuance of a writ of habeas corpus, the petitioner has stated the grievance in the manner that his daughter is in illegal detention of the private respondents, who had allegedly abducted her. The petitioner has averred that he filed a complaint before the SHO, Police Station, Sadar Bikaner whereupon, an F.I.R. bearing number 144/2012 was registered on 05.05.2012 and also made the complaint to the Lieutenant Colonel GSO-I for Command, Bihar Regimental Center, who sent a communication to the respondent No.5 for handing over the daughter of the petitioner. The petitioner has further stated the grievance that the respondents - the Police Authorities - were not taking the matter seriously; and that the private respondents have extended threats through a call made via mobile where, inter alia, one Miss Seema Jha, sister of the respondent No. 4, demanded an amount of Rs.10 lacs for handing over the daughter of the petitioner.
Thus, with the submissions that his daughter is in the clutches of the respondents and authorities were not taking adequate steps, DB Habeas Corpus Petition No.5317/2012.
Jagdish Prasad Yadav Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. [2] the petitioner has filed this petition for a writ of habeas corpus.
In this petition, on 23.05.2012, we directed the petitioner to supply the requisite sets of paper book to the learned Government Counsel as to enable him to take instructions. On 30.05.2012, the learned Government Counsel submitted on instructions that a petition for the writ of habeas corpus had been filed before the Hon'ble Patna High Court by Mr. Pitamber Jha (the respondent No.5 herein) that has a co-relation with the subject matter of the present writ petition; and the authorities were seriously taking steps to procure all the information and the clues. Having regard to the circumstances, the consideration of the matter was deferred. Thereafter, on 03.07.2012, further facts were stated regarding the petition filed before the Hon'ble Patna High Court; and we passed the following order: -
"The learned Government Counsel filed a reply to this petition for writ of habeas corpus.
During the course of consideration of the matter, it has transpired that in the matter of writ of habeas corpus pending before the Hon'ble Patna High Court, the present petitioner Jagdish Prasad Yadav is a respondent and he has filed reply to the said petition.
The Government Counsel also submits that as per his instructions, certain orders have been passed by the Courts and the respondents are in the process of procuring the copies of such orders.
The learned counsel for the petitioner should place on record a copy of petition said to have been filed before the Hon'ble Patna High Court and a copy of the reply thereto, as said to have been filed by the present petitioner. The petitioner is also permitted to file rejoinder to the reply as filed by the Government Counsel.
The learned Government Counsel to place on record the copies of the orders said to have been passed by the Courts in the co-related matters.
List this matter on 17.07.2012, as prayed."
Now, a rejoinder has been filed by the petitioner alongwith a DB Habeas Corpus Petition No.5317/2012.
Jagdish Prasad Yadav Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. [3] copy of the order dated 19.06.2012 (Annex.9) as passed by the Patna High Court whereby, the said writ application (Criminal Writ No.527/2012) was dismissed as withdrawn. The petitioner has also filed as Annexure-8 a copy of the complaint, said to have been filed by his daughter in the Court of ACJM, Danapur (registered as Complaint Case No.533/2012); and the copies of the order-sheets drawn in the said case by the Court at Danapur as Annexure-7.
The learned Government Counsel has filed a reply to the rejoinder stating, inter alia, the facts as divulged about the alleged marriage of the daughter of the petitioner with the respondent No.4, son of the respondent No.5. It has also been pointed out that the daughter of the petitioner appeared and deposed before the Court at Danapur. Certified copy of the statement as made by the daughter of the petitioner has also been placed before us for perusal. Let a copy of this statement be placed on record by the Government Counsel.
The learned counsel for the petitioner has strenuously argued that the entire proceedings as alleged to have been adopted by the daughter of the petitioner, do not inspire confidence as she continues to remain under threat and pressure; and the officer conducting investigation on the FIR lodged by the petitioner (FIR No.144/2012) ought to have recorded the statement of his daughter; and in the absence of any such statement, it cannot be concluded that the daughter of the petitioner is not in illegal detention or is making the statements of her free will.
After having taken into comprehension the facts and circumstances of case and more particularly, after having examined the contents of the complaint said to have been filed by the daughter DB Habeas Corpus Petition No.5317/2012.
Jagdish Prasad Yadav Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. [4] of the petitioner before the ACJM, Danapur; the statement said to be made by her; and the record of proceedings which show her regular attendance before the Court at Danapur, for the present purpose, we are of the view that the daughter of the petitioner cannot be said to be in an illegal detention so as to issue any writ in the nature of habeas corpus in this matter.
It is noticed that in the said complaint, as made before the Court at Danapur, the daughter of the petitioner has rather levelled allegations against the petitioner and other members of the petitioner's family. The petitioner is, of course, free to take recourse to the appropriate remedies in accordance with law including making of all the submissions before the Court concerned but, so far this petition for a writ of habeas corpus is concerned, we find no reason to entertain the same.
Subject to the observations foregoing, this petition stands dismissed.
(NARENDRA KUMAR JAIN-II),J. (DINESH MAHESHWARI),J. Cpgoyal/-
//Mohan//