Allowed

Meenakshi Thakur v. State of Punjab

Punjab & Haryana HC3 Jan 2019CRWP/8839/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A writ petition under Article 226 seeking habeas corpus for the release of an adult petitioner from State Protective Home custody. The court held that detaining the petitioner, who is a married adult and not an accused in the FIR, violates Article 21 and ordered her immediate release.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner directed to be released forthwith from custody of State Protective Home Basti Raja, Jalandhar.

Meenakshi Thakur Vs State of Punjab — Writ and Judicial Review | Punjab & Haryana HC (2019)

¶1

CRWP No.8839 of 2018

¶2

{1}

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

CRWP No.8839 of 2018 Date of decision:03.01.2019

Meenakshi Thakur

... Petitioner

Vs.

State of Punjab

... Respondent

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT RAWAL

¶11

Present:Mr. Munish Puri, Advocate, for the petitioner.

¶12

Mr. Shireesh Gupta, Senior Deputy Advocate General, Punjab.

¶13

AMIT RAWAL J. (Oral)

¶14

The present petition at the instance of Meenakshi Thakur, has been filed by invoking the provisions of Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ in the nature of habeas corpus for releasing her from the custody of State Protection Home Jalandhar.

¶15

It is alleged that Chain Singh, father-in-law of the petitioner, had lodged an FIR bearing No.35 dated 30.05.2018 under Section 365 of Indian Penal Code at Police Station Shahpurkandi, District Pathankot alleging that she was already married with Varinder Singh and have two children aged 6 and 7 years old. Suspicion was attributed to one Gagandeep Singh son of Mohinder Lal, who allegedly enticed her away with the help of his associates. In pursuance to the registration of FIR, the police has recovered her from the custody of Gagandeep Singh and after her recovery kept in State Protective Home Basti Raja, Jalandhar and had been there for the last two months. It has been contended that she is major being 29 years old and cannot be confined to the State protective home as right of life and

¶16

SAVITA KADIAN 2019.01.03 14:57 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh

¶17

CRWP No.8839 of 2018

¶18

{2}

¶19

liberty in this process has been curtailed.

¶20

In response to the notice, Deputy Superintendent of Police, City Pathankot has filed reply, wherein, it has been stated that the petitioner had already submitted an application before the trial Court for releasing her from the custody of State Protective Home, Jalandhar. The aforementioned application is stated to be pending adjudication before the trial Court for 09.01.2019. The factum of her age as reflected in the FIR, has not been denied.

¶21

I have heard the learned counsel for the parties, appraised the petition and of the view that present petition deserves to be allowed, for, concededly, as per the allegations in the FIR, petitioner is 29 years old, married with one Varinder Singh and have two children 6 and 7 years old. Even if she has been recovered from the custody of Gagandeep Singh, who after arrest has been released on bail, she cannot be confined to the State Protective Home, as referred to above for no rhyme and reasons. It is clear violation of Article 21 of the Constitution of India. It is also not a case that she is accused in FIR.

¶22

For the reasons aforementioned, the present petition is disposed of with a direction that petitioner be released forthwith from the custody of State Protective Home Basti Raja, Jalandhar.

¶23

	(AMIT RAWAL) JUDGE
January 03, 2019
savita
Whether Speaking/Reasoned	Yes/No
Whether Reportable	Yes/No

¶24

SAVITA KADIAN 2019.01.03 14:57 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh

Meenakshi Thakur v. State of Punjab

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Meenakshi Thakur v. State of Punjab

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Haryana Urban Development Authority Now Haryana Saheri Vikas Pradhikaran and Anr. Vs Mam Chand and Others

Simran Sharma Vs Naresh Kumar

Harbhajan Singh and Ors. Vs Naurang Singh and Anr.

Sonu Soni and Anothers Vs State of Punjab and Others

Amritpal Singh and Another Vs State of Punjab and Another

Annapurna Yadav and Anr. Vs State of Punjab and Ors.