Dismissed

Gopal Son of Panchu Rawat v. the State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC5 Jan 2023HC/363/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Habeas corpus petition regarding a pregnant minor kept in Balika Grah. Court directed institution to provide medical care and food. Minor to stay till majority unless she writes to join parents, then safe escorting permitted.

What did the court decide?

Directions issued to provide medical care to the pregnant minor; she must stay in Balika Grah until majority unless she expresses written desire to go to parents.

Gopal Son of Panchu Rawat Vs the State of… — Child Custody and Guardianship | Rajasthan HC (2023)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶2

D.B. Habeas Corpus Petition No. 363/2021

¶3

Gopal Son Of Panchu Rawat, Aged About 38 Years, Resident Of Village Lyalikheda, Police Station Mangliyawas, Ajmer, Rajasthan.

¶4

----Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

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

¶7

The Director General Of Police, Rajasthan, Jaipur.

¶8

Superintendent Of Police, Ajmer.

¶9

Soorma Son Of Sanwara, Aged About 19 Years, Resident Of Village Lyalikheda, Police Station Mangliyawas, Ajmer, Rajasthan.

¶10

Sanwara Son Of Ratna, Resident Of Village Lyalikheda, Police Station Mangliyawas, Ajmer, Rajasthan.

¶11

The Additional Director General Of Police, Anti Human Trafficking, Jaipur.

¶12

----Respondents

¶13

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Vijay Choudhary For State : Mr. G.S. Rathore, GA-cum-AAG

¶14

Mr. Ashok Kumar, Sub-Inspector, AHTU, Ajmer

¶15

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PANKAJ BHANDARI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BIRENDRA KUMAR

¶16

Order

¶17

05/01/2023

¶18

Petitioner-Gopal has preferred this habeas corpus petition seeking production of the corpus who happens to be his daughter.

¶19

The corpus in this case is a minor girl whose date of birth is 10.11.2006. As per direction of the Court’s order dated 12.12.2022, the corpus was directed to be kept in the Balika Grah,

¶20

(2 of 2)

¶21

[HC-363/2021]

¶22

Ajmer. She was found to be carrying eight months pregnancy. Directions were given to the Authorities to submit her medical report. In pursuance of the directions of the Court, medical report has been submitted before this Court.

¶23

Considering the fact that corpus is about to deliver a baby, we deem it proper to direct the Incharge-Superintendent of the Balika Grah, Ajmer, to provide proper medical facilities, food, lodging and all other necessities keeping in view the present condition of the corpus.

¶24

We also deem it proper to direct the InchargeSuperintendent of the Balika Grah, Ajmer, to keep the corpus in the Balika Grah, Ajmer, till she attains majority. Thereafter, the corpus would be free to go to the place of her choice.

¶25

However, if during the intervening period, the corpus expresses her desire in writing to go with her parents, she may be sent with her parents, after due verification and in case the corpus wishes to go with her parents, the parents are directed to take care of her proper well being.

¶26

Accordingly, this Habeas Corpus Petition is disposed of.

¶27

Copy of this order be provided to the learned Government Advocate-cum-Additional Advocate General for due compliance. Copy of this order be also sent to the Superintendent of Balika Grah, Ajmer, for necessary compliance.

¶28

(BIRENDRA KUMAR),J

¶29

(PANKAJ BHANDARI),J

¶30

Amit/1

Gopal Son of Panchu Rawat v. the State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gopal Son of Panchu Rawat 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

Nikita D/O Late Shri Mukesh Mittal Vs State of Rajasthan

Bhagwati and Ors. Vs State of Rajasthan through P P

Dhani Ram Vs State of Rajasthan through P P

Satendra Singh Son of Shri Aaram Singh Vs State of Rajasthan

Santosh Bairwa Wife of Shri Makkhan Lal Bairwa Vs State of Rajasthan

Vir Singh S/O Shri Dev Karan Ahir Vs State of Rajasthan