In this habeas corpus petition, the court directed the release of a 19-year-old woman detained in Nari Niketan against her will. She expressed a desire to accompany her husband, who had been bailed out. The court set aside the lower order and allowed the release.
Release of the corpus-petitioner from Nari Niketan and liberty to go according to her wishes.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Court No. - 1
Case :- HABEAS CORPUS WRIT PETITION No. - 2802 of 2018
Petitioner :- Babli Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Petitioner :- Mr Satya Dheer Singh Jadaun Counsel for Respondent :- GA
Hon'ble Ramesh Sinha,J. Hon'ble Krishna Pratap Singh,J.
Sri Prem Sagar Verma has filed power on behalf of the private respondent which is taken on record.
Heard Sri Satya Dheer Singh Jadaun, learned counsel for the petitioner, Prem Sagar Verma, learned counsel for the private respondent and Sri Ashsih Pandey, learned A.G.A. for the State.
Learned counsel for the petitioner is permitted to make necessary impleadment during the course of the day.
This petition has been filed by the petitioner with a prayer to direct the respondent no. 2 to produce the corpus-petitioner before this Court and release her after recording the statement for going anywhere according to her wishes.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that as per the High School Certificate, the petitioner-corpus is a major girl aged about 19 years and in her statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C she expressed her desire to go with her alleged husband, namely Raj Bahadur, who has already got himself bailed out but the learned Magistrate on the basis of academic record produced by respondent no. 2 sent her to Nari Niketan where she is at present confined. It is not a case of taking away or enticing away the victim, hence the order passed by the learned Magistrate to keep the corpus-petitioner in Nari Niketan is bad in the eyes of law. Learned counsel for the applicant in support of his contention has placed reliance on the judgment passed in the case of S. Varadarajan Vs. State of Madras (1965 AIR 942, 1965 SCR (1) 243. He submits that even though the victim was taken to be minor by the Magistrate, she cannot be allowed to be kept in Nari Niketan against her wishes. In support of his arguments, he has further placed reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court as well as this Court in the case of Smt. Parvati Devi vs. State of U.P. reported in 1992 All. Crl. Cases 323 and Smt. Renu Maurya and another vs. State of U.P. and another reported in 2014 (86) ACC 128.
In compliance of this Court's order dated 29.01.2018, the corpus-petitioner Km. Babli was produced by respondent no. 2 before this Court on 12.02.2018 and on a query being made, she has stated that she wants to go with her husband Raj Bahadur, who has filed the present petition.
Considering the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and taking into account the fact that as per the statement of the corpus-petitioner, she voluntarily gone with Raj Bahadur and in view of the law laid by the Apex Court as well as this Court in the case of Smt. Parvati Devi (Supra), Smt. Renu Maurya (Supra) and S. Varadarajan Vs. State of Madras (Supra) , the corpus-petitioner is set at liberty to go in accordance with her own wishes. The impugned order dated 02.01.2018 passed by court below sending the corpus-petitioner in Nari Niketan is hereby set aside.
Let the corpus -petitioner Smt. Babli be released from Nari Niketan who was produced before this Court on 12.02.2018 from where she shall set at liberty by respondent no. 2 to go according to her wishes.
Accordingly, the present petition is allowed.
(Krishna Pratap Singh,J.) (Ramesh Sinha,J.)
Order Date :- 27.2.2018 A.K.Verma
2 issues framed by the court
Whether a mail woman who voluntarily accompanies her alleged husband can be detained in Nari Niketan against her wishes.
Whether the impugned order sending the petitioner to Nari Niketan is bad in law.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
S. Varadarajan Vs. State of MadrasRelied on¶6
S. Varadarajan Vs. State of Madras (1965 AIR 942, 1965 SCR (1) 243. · Who else cites this
Smt. Parvati Devi vs. State of U.P.Relied on¶6
Smt. Parvati Devi vs. State of U.P. reported in 1992 All. Crl. Cases 323
Smt. Renu Maurya and another vs. State of U.P.Relied on¶6
Smt. Renu Maurya and another vs. State of U.P. and another reported in 2014 (86) ACC 128
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Babli
State Of U.P.
State Of U.P.
Ramesh Sinha
Krishna Pratap Singh
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
