Dismissed

Shrawan Kumar Son of Late Shri Ram Chandra v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC11 Sept 2023HC/205/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This order dismissed a habeas corpus petition filed for the production of the petitioner's missing son. The court found the corpus left the house after a report was lodged by his wife, negating any illegal detention. Relying on the High Court of Chattisgarh in Smt. Jaymati Sahu, which bars habeas corpus for missing persons without illegal detention allegations, the petition was dismissed.

What the court decided

AI extract

Shrawan Kumar Son of Late Shri Ram… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Rajasthan HC (2023)

¶1

[2023:RJ-JP:21578-DB]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

D.B. Habeas Corpus Petition No. 205/2023

¶4

Shrawan Kumar Son Of Late Shri Ram Chandra, Aged About 57 Years, Resident Of Jagdamba Colony, Ganeshpura Road, Police Station Kotwali, District Dausa (Raj.)

¶5

----Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

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

¶8

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

¶9

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

¶10

Superintendent Of Police, Dausa District Dausa (Raj.)

¶11

S.H.O. Of Police Station Kotwali, Dausa, District Dausa (Raj.).

¶12

----Respondents

¶13

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Amitabh Jatav, Adv. For Respondent(s) : Mr. G.S. Rathore, GA-cum-AAG with Mr. N.S. Gurjar, Asst. GA Mr. Murari Lal, SI Mr. Virendra Singh, ASI, Police Station Dausa

¶14

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PANKAJ BHANDARI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BHUWAN GOYAL

¶15

Order

¶16

11/09/2023

¶17

Petitioner has preferred this habeas corpus petition seeking production of the corpus who is stated to be 33 year old son of the petitioner.

¶18

Report was sought from the police. Report has been submitted by the police.

¶19

[2023:RJ-JP:21578-DB]

¶20

[HC-205/2023]

¶21

(2 of 3)

¶22

It is contended by learned AAG that a report was lodged by wife of the corpus and since then, the corpus left the house. It is contended that there is nothing to show that the corpus is in illegal detention.

¶23

We have considered the matter and have perused the missing person report.

¶24

From perusal of the missing person report as well as the report submitted by the police, it is evident that a report was lodged against the corpus by his wife and on the next day, he had left the house, from which it appears that the corpus is not in any illegal detention.

¶25

Matter pertaining to missing person report came up before the High Court Chattisgarh in “Smt. Jaymati Sahu Vs.State of Chattisgarh and Ors.” (WPHC No.8/2019) decided on 22.04.2022. High Court of Chattisgarh has observed in Para-14 as under:-

¶26

“Thus, the constitutional Courts across the country predominantly held in catena of judgments that establishing a ground of "illegal detention"and a strong suspicion about any such "illegal detention" is a condition precedent for moving a Habeas Corpus petition and the Constitutional Courts shall not entertain a Habeas Corpus petition, where there is no allegation of "illegal detention" or suspicion about any such "illegal detention". Cases of missing persons cannot be brought under the provision of the Habeas Corpus petition. Cases of missing persons are to be registered under the regular provisions of the Indian Penal Code and the Police officials concerned are bound to investigate the same in the

¶27

(3 of 3) [HC-205/2023]

¶28

[2023:RJ-JP:21578-DB]

¶29

manner prescribed under the Codeof Criminal Procedure. Such cases are to be dealt as regular cases by the competent Court of Law and the extraordinary jurisdiction of the Constitutional Courts cannot be invoked for the purpose

¶30

of dealing with such cases of missing persons.”

¶31

Since, corpus is a major and has left the house after a report was lodged against him; there is no allegation with regard to any illegal detention in the missing person report as well as report submitted by the police, hence, we are not inclined to entertain the habeas corpus petition in the light of judgment of Smt. Jaymati Sahu (supra).

¶32

Habeas corpus petition is accordingly, dismissed.

¶33

(BHUWAN GOYAL),J

¶34

(PANKAJ BHANDARI),J

¶35

CHANDAN /2

Shrawan Kumar Son of Late Shri Ram Chandra v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Shrawan Kumar Son of Late Shri Ram Chandra v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

State of Raj. Vs Farooq

State of Raj. Vs Vinod Kumar and Ors.

Barfi Devi Wife of Late Hansraj Vs State of Rajasthan

Neeraj Vaishnav S/O Shri Badri Vs State of Rajasthan

Gopal Son of Shri Hansraj Vs State of Rajasthan

Vikas Kumar Pareek S/O Madan Lal Pareek Vs State of Rajasthan