Madhya Pradesh High Court
Dr. Manohar Dalal vs State Of M.P. on 23 February, 1987
Equivalent citations: AIR1987MP132, AIR 1987 MADHYA PRADESH 132, (1987) MPLJ 514
JUDGMENT P.D. Mulye, J.
1. The-daily morning Newspapers on 5-1-1987 flashed a sensational news that a young Sadhvi Induprabhaji, who is a Sanyasini, having renounced the worldly affairs was kidnapped and abducted by certain unknown persons near Simrol while she was proceeding on foot, which spread rapidly like a fire. This news angered the Jain Community in particular, a section of which gave a call for Indore bandh in protest to give vent to their feelings and religious sentiments that such an incident should have taken place with a Jain Sadhvi, who was thus deprived of her liberty to move about as a free citizen of this democratic country. The strong protest was expressed by giving statements in newspapers, taking out processions etc., and in sympathy as also by way of silent protest the Indore bandh was almost a success in Which the lawyers in general also joined as the said news naturally gave an impression that because of the rampant lawlessness of this type the life and liberty of a Citizen is eopardised and thus no one would be safe unless immediate action is taken by the concerned State Authorities.
2. The petitioner as a benevolent citizen has filed this habeas corpus petition against the respondent with a prayer that they should produce the said Jain Sadhvi Induprabhaji before this Court to enable her to make a free and voluntary statement regarding whole affairs.
3. According to the petitioner the said Jain Sadhvi Induprabhaji was kidnapped and abducted by certain unknown persons, but thereafter she was taken to the house of one Radheshyam and that she was forced and compelled to give a statement that she wanted to live of her own free will with the said Radheshyam under his protection and that the respondents had not taken any action against those offenders even though a report was lodged to that effect.
4. Further according to the petitioner, the Jain Sadhvi Induprabhaji was coerced to make a statement that during the period in which she was hospitalised for her operation, Radheshyam was introduced to her since 15-8-86 who used to supply her fruits and milk. In short, the allegation of the petitioner has been that out of fear she was pressurised by the respondents to make a statement to the effect that she voluntarily and willingly wants to stay with Radheshyam. Further according to the petitioner though the Collector, Indore permitted the petitioner and other personalities to meet Sadhvi Induprabhaji, all the time she was restrained and was not freely permitted to talk and open her mind as to what was the real state of affairs. Therefore, according to the petitioner the respondents have made false propoganda by trying to create an impression on the public at large that the Jain Sadhvi Induprabhaji is neither in their custody nor is illegally confined anywhere or illegally detained against her wish.
5. The respondents in reply to the said allegations have denied the same and have produced documentary evidence to the effect that her statement was recorded under Section 164, Cr. P.C. by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Indore as per Annexure R-2, wherein she has categorically stated that she voluntarily and willingly wants to stay with Radheshyam and that she being a major is at liberty to move freely and stay wherever she likes, as she finds it very difficult to follow the rituals and the way of life which a Jain Sadhvi is expected to lead according to that religion. Therefore, according to the respondents as Jain Sadhvi Induprabhaji is not in illegal detention or custody with the respondents the petition deserves to be dismissed.
6. The petitioner submitted that this incident has achieved wide publicity throughout India; that news items and articles have been appearing expressing their views for and against, that it is difficult to believe that a Jain Sadhvi, who has renounced the worldly affairs would like to leave the same, return to grihasthashram, fall in love with a stranger like Radheshyam who does not belong to the Jain Community, is already married having children and that she would like to stay with such a person at village Dudhia of which Radheshyam is a resident, where she is at present residing. The petitioner also submitted that the course alleged to have been adopted by Indu Prabhaji has shaken the Jain Community at large and in such a situation she should not be allowed to stay with Radheshyam.
7. The submission of the petitioner, who himself is an Advocate, was more emotional and sentimental to attract the public attention rather than legal. At times, during his arguments, we have to remind the petitioner that he should not convert this forum into a public platform as the scope of a habeas corpus petition is limited to find out whether a person, male or female, irrespective of his religion, caste or creed has been illegally detained or confined against his/her wishes by force by any other person.
8. In this petition it is not for this Court to consider whether Sadhvi Induprabhaji wants to stay with Radheshyam under his care either because she has fallen in love with him or for any other reason as sometimes truth is stranger than fiction because even the sage Vishwamitra, who was engrossed in tapasya happened to have fancy for Menaka, Admittedly Indu Prabhaji is major, aged about 20 years and is not admittedly living with Radheshyam in his house at Dudhia, who is not made a party to this petition.
9. Shri Harbans Singh, learned counsel appearing for the mother of Induprabhaji as an intervener in this petition, submitted that according to the respondents the 'custody' of Induprabhaji has been handed over to Radheshyam. He submitted that Induprabhaji being an individual is not a 'property' whose custody as such could be handed over to a third person. It is no doubt that she is not a property at all and that the word 'custody' has been wrongly and loosely used by the respondents while permitting Induprabhaji to stay with Radheshyam out of her own free will as she needed police protection for that purpose, apprehending danger from her own people and the Community. Induprabhaji is not involved in any criminal case. So question of her interim custody or otherwise does not arise at all. That apart, even in a criminal case interim custody is given to a person subject to his undertaking that he would produce the 'property' as and when called upon and required by the Court to do so; nor this is a case of disposal of property as such after the final decision of a criminal case. It was not disputed that these days for the protection of VIPs and VVIPs for their safety and security armed guards are provided at home and outside their home wherever they go and, therefore, if Induprabhaji apprehending some danger sought protection from the respondents, which is duty bound to protect the life and liberty of a citizen in this country, it cannot be said that she is kept under custody with Radheshyam or any other person. Therefore, the submission of Shri Harbansingh was no doubt attractive, but without substance as Shri A.H. Khan, learned Govt. Advocate appearing for the respondent-State frankly submitted that the word 'custody' has been wrongly used by inadvertence.
10. The petitioner has also made allegations against Radheshyam to the effect that he is a criminal and that a FIR has also been lodged against him. However, the respondents in their reply have categorically stated that Induprabhaji is major, that she was not kidnapped or abducted nor any force was applied against her. Therefore, they have denied alt those allegations. Therefore, we may make it clear that this being a habeas corpus petition, the scope of which is limited what has to be seen is whether a person has been illegally detained or confined against his wishes whereby his liberty to move out freely is at stake and is (at) peril. In AIR 1971 SC 2197 (Col. Dr. B. Ramchandra Rao v. State of Orissa) in para 7 it has been held that in habeas corpus proceedings the Court is to have regard to the legality or otherwise of the detention at the time of the return and not with reference to the institution of the proceedings. A fortiori the Court would not be concerned with a date prior to the initiation of the proceedings for a writ of habeas corpus. Please also see AIR 1970 SC 786 (S.N. Sharma v. Bepen Kumar Tiwari). Therefore, as Indu Prabhaji is not in the custody of the respondents nor she has been illegally detained by them or Radheshyam as averred by them, question of granting relief to the petitioner does not arise because even according to the petitioner it is known to everyone that Induprabhaji is staying with Radheshyam at Dudhia nor it is his case that there also she is not allowed to move out of the house or that there she has been illegally confined or detained. If she sought police protection apprehending some danger, it cannot be said that she is caged.
11. In the result this petition stands dismissed.