Dismissed

Anop Ram v. the State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC12 Jul 2023HC/68/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a D.B. habeas corpus petition alleging kidnapping of a 17-year-old grand-daughter, the High Court held that the girl had attained majority. She stated she married the respondent and remained with him voluntarily. The court consequently found no illegal detention and dismissed the petition.

What did the court decide?

Petition dismissed; corpus free to go to place of choice; police directed to facilitate return.

Anop Ram Vs the State of Rajasthan — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Rajasthan HC (2023)

¶1

[2023:RJ-JD:21106-DB]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶3

D.B. Habeas Corpus Petition No. 68/2023

¶4

Anop Ram S/o Shri Madan Lal Ji, Aged About 56 Years, By Caste Rao, R/o Village Nandiya Kalla, P.s. Kherapa - Bavari, Tehsil And District Jodhpur (Rajasthan).

¶5

----Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

The State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Secretary, Department Of Home, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur.

¶8

The Superintendent Of Police, Jodhpur Rural.

¶9

Station House Officer, Police Station Kherapa, District Jodhpur Rural (Rajasthan).

¶10

Sonu @ Aman Rathore S/o Shri Ram Prasad, By Caste Rao, R/o Village Baran-Gaon, Tehsil And District Nagaur (Rajasthan).

¶11

Ram Prasad S/o Shri Pema Ram, By Caste Rao, R/o Village Baran-Gaon, Tehsil And District Nagaur (Rajasthan).

¶12

Nimba Ram S/o Shri Pema Ram, By Caste Rao, R/o Village Baran-Gaon, Tehsil And District Nagaur (Rajasthan).

¶13

Charanjeet S/o Shri Nimba Ram, By Caste Rao, R/o Village Baran-Gaon, Tehsil And District Nagaur (Rajasthan).

¶14

----Respondents

¶15

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Shambhoo Singh Rathore

¶16

For Respondent(s) : Mr. M.A. Siddiqui, GA-cum-AAG with Mr. A.R. Malkani

¶17

Mr. Ramesh Dewasi for the corpus

¶18

Mr. Anop Ram, petitioner, present in person

¶19

Mr. Prameet Chouhan, SI(P), PS, Khedapa, Distt. Jodhpur Rural, present in person

¶20

(2 of 3)

¶21

[2023:RJ-JD:21106-DB]

¶22

[HC-68/2023]

¶23

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

¶24

Judgment / Order

¶25

12/07/2023

¶26

The instant habeas corpus petition is filed by the petitioner alleging that his grand-daughter, aged about 17 years and 7 months has been kidnapped by the respondent No.4 on 29.1.2023 and in relation to that, an FIR has been lodged by him at Police Station Khedapa, Jodhpur (Rural) on 30.1.2023.

¶27

It is alleged by the petitioner that the police is not making any effort to trace out his grand-daughter, who is minor, therefore, a writ of habeas corpus may be issued to the respondents with a direction to produce the corpus before this Court.

¶28

This Court has issued notices to the respondents on 21.3.2023 and thereafter, the matter was listed on several occasions and every time, learned AAG has submitted factual reports, wherein the efforts carried out to trace out the corpus have been mentioned.

¶29

It is noticed that the police has failed to trace out the corpus, however today the corpus is present before this Court through Mr. Ramesh Dewasi, her Advocate.

¶30

As per the certificate of Secondary Examination – 2021, the date of birth of the corpus is 25.6.2005, as such, she has attained majority on 24.6.2023.

¶31

We have interacted with the corpus and she has stated that after attaining the age of majority on 24.6.2023, she solemnized marriage with the respondent No.4. The corpus has also stated

¶32

[2023:RJ-JD:21106-DB]

¶33

[HC-68/2023]

¶34

that since 29.1.2023, she remained with the respondent No.4 on her own free will.

¶35

This Court has granted time to the corpus to meet her mother and grand parents, however despite their meeting, the corpus insisted that she is not desirous to go with her family members and wants to go with the respondent No.4 only.

¶36

Taking into consideration the overall facts and circumstances of the case and keeping in view the fact that the corpus is major today and she is not in illegal detention of anybody, no further direction is required to be passed in this habeas corpus petition.

¶37

Hence, this habeas corpus petition is dismissed.

¶38

The corpus is set free to go at the place of her choice. The police is directed to facilitate return of the corpus to the place of her choice.

¶39

(RAJENDRA PRAKASH SONI),J

¶40

(VIJAY BISHNOI),J

¶41

35 – ms rathore

Anop Ram v. the State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anop Ram 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

Swaroop Singh Vs the State of Rajasthan

Vijendra Singh Vs State of Rajasthan

Sarwar Khan @ Sheru Vs State of Rajasthan

State of Rajasthan Vs Tilok Ran and Ors.

Shyam Lal Vs the State of Rajasthan

Sukhveer @ Kulli Vs the State of Rajasthan