Dismissed

Saroj v. the State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC3 Nov 2023HC/340/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this D.B. Habeas Corpus petition, the petitioner alleged her daughter was illegally detained by respondent No.4. The respondents produced a police report stating the daughter is a major, married, and refused to go with the petitioner. The court dismissed the petition finding no case for interference. Factors included the daughter's age and her statement to police.

What did the court decide?

The habeas corpus petition is dismissed.

Saroj Vs the State of Rajasthan — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Rajasthan HC (2023)

¶1

[2023:RJ-JD:37635-DB]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶3

D.B. Habeas Corpus Petition No. 340/2023

¶4

Saroj W/o Shyam Sunder, Aged About 43 Years, R/o Keriya Marg, Ward No. 3, Kuchera, Nagaur 341024, Rajasthan.

¶5

----Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

The State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary, Home Department, Secretariat, Rajasthan, Jaipur.

¶8

The Superintendent Of Police, District Nagaur.

¶9

The Station House Officer (Sho), Police Station Kuchera, District Nagaur.

¶10

Vijayendra S/o Bhoora Ram Latiyal, Adult, R/o Thirod, Nagaur 341026, Rajasthan.

¶11

----Respondents

¶12

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Veer Aditya Singh

¶13

For Respondent(s) : Mr. M.A. Siddiqui, GA-cum-AAG with Mr. Rohit Mutha Mr. Suraj Mal, SI/SHO, PS Kuchera, Distt. Nagaur, present in person

¶14

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAY BISHNOI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MUNNURI LAXMAN

¶15

Judgment / Order

¶16

03/11/2023

¶17

This habeas corpus petition is filed by the petitioner alleging therein that her daughter-corpus is missing since 18.9.2023 and in relation to that, a missing person report was lodged by her, however, the police are not making any effort to trace out her daughter-corpus. It is also stated in the petition that the petitioner is apprehending that her daughter-corpus is in illegal detention of the respondent No.4.

¶18

[2023:RJ-JD:37635-DB]

¶19

[HC-340/2023]

¶20

(2 of 2)

¶21

Learned AAG has submitted a factual report, wherein it is mentioned that the petitioner’s daughter-corpus and the respondent No.4 have filed a Criminal Misc. Petition before this Court with a prayer that the respondents may be directed to provide protection to them.

¶22

It is submitted that the Criminal Misc. Petition was disposed of by this Court while granting liberty to the corpus and the respondent No.4 to move a representation before the Superintendent of Police, Nagaur and pursuant to that, the corpus and the respondent No.4 appeared before the police and produced copy of marriage certificate. It is also submitted that statement of the corpus was recorded by the police, wherein she has specifically stated that she is major and has solemnized marriage with the respondent No.4 and at present, she is residing with the respondent No.4 only. The corpus has also specifically refused to go with the petitioner.

¶23

Taking into consideration the overall facts and circumstances of the case and keeping in view the fact that the corpus is major and she gave statement to the police that she is not in illegal detention of respondent No.4 or anybody, we do not find any case for interference in this habeas corpus petition.

¶24

Hence, this habeas corpus petition is dismissed.

¶25

(MUNNURI LAXMAN),J

¶26

(VIJAY BISHNOI),J

¶27

138-msrathore/-

Saroj v. the State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Saroj v. the 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

Devaram Vs State of Rajasthan

Arfi Khan @ Kau Vs State of Rajasthan

Krishan @ Bablu Vs State of Rajasthan

Tulsi Ram Vs State of Rajasthan

Sharvan Kumar Vs State of Rajasthan

Babu Ram Vs State of Rajasthan