Disposed

Afsar Ansari v. the State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC13 Mar 2019W.P.(Cr.)/290/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a habeas corpus petition, the High Court directed the Superintendent of the Probation Home to release respondent No.4, who had attained majority. The direction was made following the petitioner's acquittal which ordered her release, noting she is free to live with her husband if detention is no longer required.

What did the court decide?

Respondent No.3, Superintendent of Mahila Probation Home, to take steps for the release of respondent No.4, Gita Kumari, as she has attained majority and the petitioner was acquitted.

Afsar Ansari Vs the State of Jharkhand — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Jharkhand HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P. (Cr-H.B.) (DB) No. 290 of 2018

¶2

Afsar Ansari ….. …. Petitioner

¶3

Versus

¶4

The State of Jharkhand

¶5

Officer-in-Charge, Lohardaga Mahila Police Station, Lohardaga.

¶6

The Superintendent, Mahila Probation Home, Namkum, Ranchi.

¶7

Gita Kumari

¶8

Radha Devi .…. … Respondents

¶9

P R E S E N T

¶10

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE H. C. MISHRA HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI

¶11

For the Petitioner : Mr. Shekhar Prasad Sinha, Adv. For the State : Mr. Krishna Shankar, A.P.P. For the Respondent No.4 : Mr. Nitish Krishna, Advocate --------

¶12

7/ 13.03.2019 This writ for habeas corpus has been filed by the petitioner, praying therein that respondent No.4 Gita Kumari, who is the legally wedded wife of the petitioner, be released from Mahila Probation Home, Namkum, Ranchi, as she was confined in the Probation Home pursuant to a criminal case filed by the mother of respondent No.4, against the petitioner on 30.07.2017, alleging that this petitioner had kidnapped her daughter for the purpose of marriage. The said case was registered as Lohardaga Mahila P.S. Case No. 41 of 2017 under Sections 365 / 366-A of the Indian Penal Code, against this petitioner. The petitioner faced the trial in S.T. No. 116 of 2017, arising out of Lohardaga Mahila P.S. Case No. 41 of 2017, in which, respondent No.4 also gave evidence in favour of the petitioner. The said S.T. No. 116 of 2017 has since ended in acquittal of the petitioner, by the Judgment of acquittal dated 25.01.2019 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Lohardaga.

¶13

Respondent No.4, and her mother respondent No.5 were noticed in this case and respondent No.4 has appeared through advocate. By order dated 06.03.2019, respondent No.3, i.e., the Superintendent of Mahila Probation Home, Namkum, Ranchi, was directed to produce the respondent No.4 Gita Kumari

¶14

-2-

¶15

in the Court. In compliance of the order, respondent No.4 Gita Kumari has been produced in the Court, along with her identity and age proof, which show that her date of birth is 20.03.1999. As on date, she has attained the majority.

¶16

Upon query from the Superintendent of Mahila Probation Home, Namkum, Ranchi, as to why respondent No.4 Gita Kumari, has been kept in the Probation Home, she has produced an order of the Trial Court below, directing the girl to be kept in the Probation Home. In the said order, it was stated that final order regarding release of the girl from the Probation Home shall be passed at the time of disposal of trial.

¶17

The copy of the Judgment of acquittal dated 25.01.2019, passed in Sessions Trial No. 116 of 2017, has been brought on record as Annexure-A to the supplementary counter affidavit filed on behalf of ASI, Mahila Police Station, Lohardaga, wherein, it finds mentioned as follows:-

¶18

“ Since Geeta Kumari has remanded on Nari Niketan,

¶19

Namkum, vide order dated 01.08.2017 of C.J.M., Lohardaga, therefore, on disposal of this case with result mentioned above, she may take step for release from Nari Niketan, if she has attend majority ”.

¶20

When the Superintendent of Probation Home was asked about this order, she said that the certified copy of the same has not been made available to her, and pursuant to photocopy of the Judgment, she has made communication to the Court concerned, but there is no reply of the same.

¶21

Respondent No.4, who is present in the Court states that she is the legally married wife of petitioner Afsar Ansari and she wishes to live with him. However, there is nothing on record to support the marriage, except the statements of the petitioner and respondent No.4.

¶22

The fact, however, remains that respondent No.4 has since attained the majority and she is free to go and live anywhere she likes, if her detention is not required in Probation Home.

¶23

-3-

¶24

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he shall be making available the certified copy of the Judgment of acquittal dated 25.1.2019, passed in Sessions Trial No. 116 of 2017, to the Superintendent of Mahila Probation Home, Namkum, Ranchi.

¶25

It is directed that upon getting the certified copy of the Judgment of acquittal, in which, there is also observation for release of respondent No.4 from the Probation Home, as quoted above, respondent No.3, the Superintendent of Mahila Probation Home, Namkum, Ranchi, shall take appropriate steps for release of the respondent No.4 Geeta Kumari, if her detention is not required in the Probation Home in connection with any case.

¶26

Since respondent No.4 has attained the majority, she shall be free to go anywhere as per her wish, upon her release from the Probation Home.

¶27

This writ petition stands disposed of with the directions as above.

¶28

( H. C. Mishra, J.)

¶29

(Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.)

¶30

R.Kr.

Afsar Ansari v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Afsar Ansari v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Roshan Oraon Vs the State of Jharkhand through National Investigating Agency

Manik Singh And Anr. Vs Staate of Jharkhand

Arun Kumar Singh Vs State of Jharkhand

Dewanti Devi Alais Dewatiya Devi Vs State of Jharkhand

Kauleshwar Rana Vs State of Jharkhand

Gangadhar Gope Vs State of Jharkhand