Jharkhand High Court
Guria Bhagat Now Guria Rawani vs The State Of Jharkhand And Ors on 27 November, 2013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND, RANCHI
W. P. (H.B.CR ) No.283 of 2013
Guria Bhagat now Guria Rawani ..... Petitioner
Versus
The State of Jharkhand & Others ..... Respondents
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D. N. PATEL
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P. P. BHATT
For the Petitioner : Mr. Mahesh Tewari, Advocate
For the Respondent : Mr. R. Mukhapadhyay, S.C.II.
02/ Dated, 27th November, 2013
per D.N. Patel, J.
1. This petition has been preferred for the issuance of writ of
Habeas Corpus for release of Guria Bhagat from Nari Niketan situated
at Deoghar.
2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the
Birth Date of the petitioner is 16.04.1995. She has married with
Sushanto Malakar on 5.9.2013 at a Temple situated at Pahari Mandir
in the city of Ranchi. As she is a major, she cannot be detained at Nari
Niketa at Deoghar. She has gone with Sushanto Malakar with her free
will and consent and her statement has been recorded under Section
164 Cr.P.C. which is also on record of this writ petition and her
detention at Nari Niketan is absolutely illegal, and therefore, the
present petitioner may be released forthwith from the custody of Nari
Niketan at Deoghar. Counsel for the petitioner has also taken this
Court to the F.I.R. lodged by the father of the girl and the application
preferred by this petitioner before the Judicial Magistrate, First Class,
Dhanbad for release, but the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Dhanbad
has not properly appreciated the aforesaid facts specially the statement
recorded under Section 164 Cr. P.C. which is at Annexure 2 to the
memo of this petition.
3. We have heard the counsel appearing for the State who has
submitted that there is no illegal detention of the present petitioner at
Nari Niketan at Deoghar. The said custody at Nari Niketan at Deoghar
is by virtue of the judicial order passed by Judicial Magistrate, First
Class, Dhanbad on 26.9.2013. The said order is at Annexure3 to the
memo of this petition. Thus, if the petitioner is aggrieved by the said
order passed by Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Dhanbad, it can be
challenged before an appropriate forum in accordance with law. But,
in no circumstances, it can be said that the custody of the petitioner in
the Nari Niketan, at Deoghar is an illegal custody.
4. Having heard the counsels appearing for both the sides and
looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, it appears that the
present petitioner had voluntarily gone as per her statement with
Sushanto Malakar. Thus, the highest argument so far as allowing of
this writ petition is concerned, is the statement which has been
recorded under Section 164 Cr. P.C. We have perused the annexures
filed by the petitioner and looking to these annexures, it appears that
Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Dhanbad has passed initially the
various orders in the month of September, 2013. One of these orders is
dated 26.9.2013, whereby Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Dhanbad
has sent the present petitioner at Nari Niketan, at Deoghar. Thereafter,
also further orders have been passed and one more detailed order
passed is dt. 22.10.2013 upon the application preferred by the
petitioner to be released. Thus, in no circumstances, it can be said that
the custody of the petitioner with the Nari Niketan at Deoghar is an
illegal custody. If the petitioner is aggrieved by the order of Judicial
Magistrate, First Class, Dhanbad, she is at liberty to challenge the
same in accordance with law before an appropriate forum. So far this
writ of Habeas Corpus is concerned, the same is not tenable at law as
the custody of the present petitioner with the Nari Niketan at Deoghar
is by virtue of the order of Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Dhanbad
dated 26.9.2013 and more particularly, when the application preferred
by the petitioner for her release has been rejected by the Judicial
Magistrate, First Class, Dhanbad by a detailed speaking order dated
22.10.2013. These two orders, make the custody of the petitioner with the Nari Niketan at Deoghar is a legal one. Unless these two orders are challenged in an appropriate matter before the appropriate forum as per the law applicable to the petitioner as well as the respondent, there is no substance in this writ petition. Hence, the same is hereby dismissed, reserving the liberty with the petitioner to challenge the orders passed by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Dhanbad. (D. N. Patel, J.) (P. P. Bhatt, J.) SD/SI