Dismissed

Chanda v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC4 Sept 2023HC/68/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This D.B. Habeas Corpus Petition was filed to challenge the alleged illegal detention of the petitioner's mentally retarded son by a respondent, who was responsible for his care while the mother was in jail. The High Court examined police reports and the case diary, finding the allegation of illegal detention baseless and concluding the son likely left due to mental instability.

What did the court decide?

Disposed of the petition and directed the Police to continue the search and investigation into the missing son report.

Chanda Vs State of Rajasthan — Rajasthan HC (2023) — LawSathi Research

¶1

[2023:RJ-JD:27848-DB]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT

¶3

JODHPUR.

¶4

….

¶5

D.B. Habeas Corpus Petition No. 68/2019.

¶6

Chanda W/o Ramzan Khan, aged about 50 years, by caste Musalman, Resident of Didadiya Dhani, Jalandhari, Tehsil Pokran District Jaisalmer.

¶7

(At present confined in Central Jail, Jodhpur).

¶8

----Petitioner

¶9

Versus

¶10

State of Rajasthan through the Secretary, Department Of Home Affairs, Government of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.

¶11

The Director General of Police, Rajasthan, Jaipur.

¶12

The Superintendent of Police, Jaisalmer. 4. The Station House Officer, Police Station Pokran, District Jaisalmer.

¶13

Salman S/o Hasim Khan, Resident Of Didadiya Dhani, Jalandhari, Tehsil Pokran District Jaisalmer.

¶14

----Respondents

¶15

For Petitioner(s)	:	Mr. Deepak Choudhary.
		Ms. Laxmi Devi.
For Respondent(s)	:	Mr. M.A. Siddiqui, GA-cum-AAG.
		Mr. A.R. Malkani, Asstt. to AAG.
		Mr. Bharmal, Sub Inspector, Police
		Station Pokaran,District Jaisalmer.

¶16

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAY BISHNOI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJENDRA PRAKASH SONI

¶17

Order

¶18

04/09/2023

¶19

This habeas corpus petition has been filed by the petitioner stating that she was under confinement for about seven years at

¶20

[2023:RJ-JD:27848-DB]

¶21

[HC-68/2019]

¶22

(2 of 3)

¶23

Central Jail, Jodhpur for the offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. Though, she is having five children (two daughters and three sons), her elder son Abdul Rahim was living alone in his matrimonial house during her confinement in Jail; Abdul Rahim is mentally retarded and the respondent No.5 is responsible for taking care of her son.

¶24

It is further stated that when she came out from Jail, she found that her son (Abdul Rahim) is missing and in relation to that his uncle Suleman S/o Amirdeen has filed a Missing Person Report (MPR) at Police Station Pokaran, District Jaisalmer on 25.04.2018. It is stated that Abdul Rahim was about 22 years of age when he left her home.

¶25

In the habeas corpus petition, it is alleged by the petitioner that she has apprehension that her son has illegally been detained by the respondent No.5 with an intention to misappropriate the properties of her husband.

¶26

After issuance of the notice of this habeas corpus petition in the year 2019, the Police has furnished several reports wherein the efforts carried by the Police to trace out the petitioner’s son namely Abdul Rahim have been detailed out. 5. On one occasion, this Court has directed the Police to place on record the relevant material to show that what efforts were made by the Investigating Authority to collect necessary information from respondent No.5 because in the factual report, the Police has concluded that the respondent No.5 has no role in missing of the son of the petitioner.

¶27

Pursuant to the said direction, the Police has produced the case diary, which was perused by this Court and it was revealed

¶28

[2023:RJ-JD:27848-DB]

¶29

[HC-68/2019]

¶30

(3 of 3)

¶31

that the respondent No.5 was extensively interrogated by the Police on various occasions, however, the conclusion remains the same that the respondent No.5 is not responsible for missing of petitioner’s son or he was not in illegal confinement of respondent No.5.

¶32

Having gone through the various factual reports and the orders passed by this Court from time to time, we are of the opinion that the apprehension of the petitioner against the respondent No.5 is without any basis. The son of the petitioner was a major but his mental condition was poor, in such circumstances, it appears that he left the house of the petitioner due to bad mental condition.

¶33

In the above facts and circumstances of the case, we do not find any reason to continue with this habeas corpus petition pending. Hence, we dispose of it with a direction to the Police to continue its search regarding missing son of the petitioner and make every effort to carry out the investigation into the Missing Person Report to find a conclusion at the earliest.

¶34

Ordered accordingly.

¶35

(RAJENDRA PRAKASH SONI),J

¶36

(VIJAY BISHNOI),J

¶37

29-Mohan/-

Chanda v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chanda 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ramjaan Kha Vs State of Rajasthan

Bal Kishan Pareek Vs Hemant Gera

Mahabeer Singh Vs Hemant Gera

Gordhan Lal Vs State of Rajasthan

Sajan Khan Vs State of Rajasthan

Smt. Sharada Vs State of Rajasthan