Disposed

Narayan Jat Son of Late Shri Ghasiram v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC2 May 2022HC/57/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a D.B. Habeas Corpus petition, the court examined allegations of illegal detention of the petitioner's missing son. Finding no evidence of illegal custody and noting the missing person appeared at other police stations, the court disposed of the petition directing police to trace and recover the son.

What did the court decide?

Direction to S.H.O. Pachpadra to trace and recover the missing son; liberty to revive.

Narayan Jat Son of Late Shri Ghasiram Vs State of… — Writ and Judicial Review | Rajasthan HC (2022)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶2

D.B. Habeas Corpus Petition No. 57/2022

¶3

Narayan Jat Son Of Late Shri Ghasiram, Aged About 75 Years, Resident Of 52, Devanda Ki Dhani Chirani, Tehsil Sanganer, Jaipur (Raj.)

¶4

----Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

State Of Rajasthan, Through Home Secretary, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur (Raj.)

¶7

Director General Of Police, Police Headquarter, Jaipur (Raj.)

¶8

Additional Director General Of Police, Anti Human Trafficking, Unit Jaipur (Raj.)

¶9

Superintendent Of Police, Jaipur Rural, Jaipur (Raj.)

¶10

S.H.O. Of Police Station Sej, District Jaipur (Raj.)

¶11

Madan Sharma Son Of Gopal, Resident Of Mahapura, D.P.S. Ke Samne, Petrol Pump Ke Pichhe, Jaipur (Raj.)

¶12

----Respondents

¶13

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. M.S. Choudhary Advocate For State : Ms. Rekha Madnani, Additional Government Advocate For Respondent No.6 : Mr. Virender Godara Advocate. Mr. Satya Pal Singh, CI, Station House Officer, Police Station, SEZ, Mr. Suresh Kumar, SI, Police Station Pachpadra, Mr. Tagaram, Head Constable, are present in person.

¶14

HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MR. MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SAMEER JAIN Judgment / Order

¶15

02/05/2022

¶16

Heard.

¶17

Mr. Suresh Kumar, Sub Inspector, Station House Officer of Police Station Pachpadra, District Barmer is also present along with the records of the enquiry/investigation carried out in the matter so far.

¶18

(2 of 3)

¶19

[HC-57/2022]

¶20

According to the allegations contained in the writ petition, the missing son (Ramesh) of the petitioner had dispute with respondent No.6 with regard to payment of his wages as he was under employment of the respondent No.6. According to the allegations made in the writ petition, the deceased had gone to respondent No.6 and thereafter, he went missing and as he was not traceable, writ petition came to be filed for tracing out the missing son (Ramesh) of the petitioner and producing him before the Court.

¶21

Learned State counsel has placed before this Court a status report dated 01.05.2022 which shows that the missing person (Ramesh) is being traced at different places and number of calls have been traced through the Cyber Cell that he talked to his brother and friends. Learned State counsel would further submit that much after alleged date, the son (Ramesh) of the petitioner had gone missing, on 26.09.2021 he appeared before the Station House Officer of Police Station, Sez, District Jaipur in connection with a theft and was interrogated and thereafter, he was released.

¶22

Another occasion also arose for interrogating him in connection with another criminal case, but it is stated that he was not taken into custody.

¶23

From the status report dated 01.05.2022 and what has been stated by the learned State counsel and the contents of the record, it is found that so far, the allegation of the petitioner that respondent No.6 has illegally detained the son (Ramesh) of the petitioner is not borne out. It is also stated that the son (Ramesh) of the petitioner is a person of criminal background and against him number of criminal cases have been registered. Even after, he went missing, he again appeared for interrogation before the

¶24

(3 of 3)

¶25

[HC-57/2022]

¶26

police in different police stations. The statements of the brother of missing person (Ramesh) and his friend, which have been recorded by the police during enquiry/investigation, also do not reveal that in the mobile call, he made allegation of he being kept in wrongful confinement by respondent No.6.

¶27

With the aforesaid material having been placed before us, we do not find that there is any basis for us to come to the conclusion that respondent No.6 has kept the son (Ramesh) of the petitioner in illegal detention. It is relevant to mention that statement of respondent No.6 has also been recorded and the missing son (Ramesh) of the petitioner was not found in the custody of respondent No.6.

¶28

Taking into consideration the entire material as it stands today, we are not inclined to keep this matter further pending.

¶29

However, as the son (Ramesh) of the petitioner is missing, the respondent-Station House Officer of Police Station Pachpadra, District Barmer shall make all efforts to trace and recover the son (Ramesh) of the petitioner and after he is recovered, to act in accordance with law because the missing person (Ramesh) is said to be mature, aged about 27 years.

¶30

With the observations made herein above and the direction to trace and recover son (Ramesh) of the petitioner, we are not inclined to pass any further order in this matter at this stage. The petition is, therefore, disposed off with liberty to revive, in case eventuality so arises.

¶31

Status report dated 01.05.2022 shall form part of the record.

¶32

(SAMEER JAIN),J

¶33

(MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA),ACTING CJ

¶34

Sanjay Kumawat-16

Narayan Jat Son of Late Shri Ghasiram v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Narayan Jat Son of Late Shri Ghasiram v. State of Rajasthan

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

M/S Tomar Enterprises Vs the Union of India

M/S Subhash Chand Mukesh Chand Vs State of Rajasthan

State of Rajasthan Vs Swati Sharma D/O Rajesh Kumar Sharma

Lakhan Lal Meena S/O Shri Jaypal Meena Vs State of Rajasthan

Virendra Kumar Gupta S/O Heera Lal Gupta Vs Income Tax Officer

Gyarsi Lal Saini Son of Shri Chanda Lal Saini Vs State of Rajasthan