Dismissed

Makhan Singh v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC9 Feb 2023HC/31/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a habeas corpus petition challenging the confinement of the petitioner's wife. After verifying her statement that she left voluntarily and is now with a new husband in Mumbai, the Court held no illegal detention existed and ordered her release.

What did the court decide?

Corporate is directed to be facilitated to return to place of her choice; peremptory cost refunded.

Makhan Singh Vs State of Rajasthan — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Rajasthan HC (2023)

¶1

[2023/RJJD/004569]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶3

D.B. Habeas Corpus Petition No. 31/2023

¶4

Makhan Singh S/o Shri Prabat Singh, Aged About 22 Years, Resident Of Village Jalampura, District Jalore (Raj.).

¶5

----Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary, Ministry Of Home Affairs, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur.

¶8

The Inspector General Of Police, Jodhpur (Raj.).

¶9

The Superintendent Of Police, Jalore (Raj.).

¶10

The Sho, Police Station, Bishangarh, District Jalore (Raj.). 5. Heer Singh S/o Kan Singh, Resident Of Village Thalunda, Tehsil Sayla, District Jalore (Raj.).

¶11

----Respondents

¶12

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Akash Goyal For Respondent(s) : Mr. MA Siddiqui, GA cum AAG assisted by Mr. AR Malkani Present in person : Mr. Shivraj Singh, SI Ms. Geeta- 1066, MFC Police Station, Bishangarh, District Jalore

¶13

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAY BISHNOI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAVEER BHATNAGAR

¶14

Order

¶15

09/02/2023

¶16

This habeas corpus petition has been filed by the petitioner alleging that his wife is in illegal detention of the respondent No.5. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was in relationship with one Mst. “M” since long and when she attained majority, both of them decided to solemnize marriage and, thereafter, they have went to Kerala and performed marriage, however later on, the respondent No.5, who is father of

[2023/RJJD/004569]

[HC-31/2023]

(2 of 3)

petitioner’s wife took her with him and at present, she is in his illegal confinement.

¶21

On 04.02.2023, the police has produced the case diary with regard to investigation carried by it in the missing person report filed by the respondent No.5. In the said missing person report, it is alleged by the respondent No.5 that his daughter was missing on 12.01.2023 and he has doubt that she might have eloped with one Vikram Singh son of Parbat Singh.

¶22

The police has recovered the corpus – Mst. “M” from Ahmedabad Airport and, thereafter, recorded her statement on 26.01.2023, wherein she admitted that she went with the petitioner, who is also known as Vikram Singh, as per her own free will. The corpus has further stated that since she is major and is not under pressure of anybody, she wants to go with her father.

¶23

In the police investigation, it is concluded that the petitioner Makhan Singh is also known as Vikram Singh.

¶24

Taking into consideration the statement of the corpus recorded by the police on 26.01.2023, this Court directed the police to produce the corpus before this Court, subject to the condition that the petitioner may deposit peremptory cost of Rs.50,000/- with the Registrar (Judicial) of this court. The said peremptory cost has already been deposited by the petitioner.

¶25

Learned AAG has produced the corpus before this Court today. We have interacted with the corpus in Camera as well as in the open Court and she has stated that she went with the petitioner on 12.01.2023 as per her own free will and went to State of Kerala via Mumbai. The corpus has also stated that now she is married with one Jagmal Singh and at present, she is

¶26

[2023/RJJD/004569]

¶27

[HC-31/2023]

¶28

residing with him in Mumbai. She has also expressed her desire to go with her husband - Jagmal Singh only and has specifically stated that she is not in illegal detention of anybody.

¶29

It is not in dispute that the corpus is major and earlier she went with the petitioner on her own free will, however, now she expressed her desire to go with her husband – Jagmal Singh.

¶30

In such circumstances, we do not find any force in this habeas corpus petition and the same is dismissed as such.

¶31

The peremptory cost deposited by the petitioner shall be refunded to him on moving an appropriate application in this regard.

¶32

The police is directed to facilitate the return of the corpus to the place of her choice.

¶33

(PRAVEER BHATNAGAR),J

¶34

(VIJAY BISHNOI),J

¶35

45-mohit/-

Makhan Singh v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Makhan Singh 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

State of Rajasthan Vs Megharam and Ors.

Suresh Kumar Vs State of Rajasthan

Surendra Kumar @ Sunil Vs State of Rajasthan

State of Rajasthan Vs Manna Singh and Ors.

Suresh Kumar Vs State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan High Court Assistant Employees Association Jodhpur Vs the State of Rajasthan