Disposed

Bhera Ram v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC25 Jan 2024HC/21/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner filed a habeas corpus petition claiming his son was abducted and detained in Bihar for ransom. Petitioner expressly stated son traveled to Bihar voluntarily. The Court held petitioner's son went to his in-laws in Bihar on his own, so this Court lacked jurisdiction to issue a writ, directing petitioner to approach the competent court in Bihar.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner directed to approach the competent court in Bihar.

Bhera Ram Vs State of Rajasthan — Child Custody and Guardianship | Rajasthan HC (2024)

¶1

[2024:RJ-JD:4071-DB]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶3

D.B. Habeas Corpus Petition No. 21/2024

¶4

Bhera Ram S/o Mangilal, Aged About 50 Years, R/o Guda Bhadawata Tehsil Sojat Police Station Bagri Nagar District Pali,rajasthan. (Father Of Corpus Rakesh)

¶5

----Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

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

¶8

State Of Bihar, Through The Secretary, Home Department, Government Of Bihar, Secretariat Patna.

¶9

The Inspector General Of Police, Pali Range District Pali. 4. The Inspector General Of Police, District Aurangabad State Bihar.

¶10

The Home And External Affairs, Secretariat Patna State Bihar.

¶11

Jogedar Prasad Singh S/o Namalubh, R/o Gyan Ganga Amrit Nigaha, Daud Nagar, District Aurangabad, State Bihar.

¶12

Ajay Kumar S/o Jogedar Prasad, R/o Gyan Ganga Amrit Nigaha, Daud Nagar, District Aurangabad, State Bihar.

¶13

Guddi D/o Jogedar Prasad Singh, At Present R/o Gyan Ganga Amrit Nigaha, Daud Nagar, District Aurangabad, State Bihar.

¶14

----Respondents

¶15

For Petitioner(s)	: Mr. Gajendra Panwar
For Respondent(s)	: Mr. M.A. Siddiqui, GA-cum-AAG with
	Mr. A.R. Malkani
	Mr. Prahlad Singh, ASI, P.S. Bagdi Nagar

¶16

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

¶17

25/01/2024

¶18

This habeas corpus petition has been filed by the petitioner alleging that his son had solemnized marriage with one Gudi-

[2024:RJ-JD:4071-DB]

[HC-21/2024]

(2 of 3)

respondent No.8 on 18.01.2023 as per Hindu Rites and for that he paid Rs.1,50,000/- to the respondent No.6, who happened to be the father of the respondent No.8.

¶23

It is stated in the petition that for some time, the respondent No.8 lived with petitioner’s son and thereafter she went to her parental house in Bihar. It is further stated that the corpus never returned and respondent No.6 had forcefully asked the petitioner’s son to come to Bihar to take his wife and his son went to Bihar alone. Now, the respondent No.6 has demanded ransom of Rs.36 lakh to send his son back. It is submitted that the respondent No.6 has also sent a video on whatsapp, wherein the respondent No.6 and some other persons manhandling his son Rakesh.

¶24

It is submitted that the petitioner has made several complaints to the S.P. and other police officials, but no action has been taken by them. It is further stated that the petitioner has also approached the police authorities at Aurangabad, Bihar, but they have also not taken any action to recover his son. It is also stated that the petitioner’s son is in illegal detention of private respondents and, therefore, the police may be directed to produce the petitioner’s son before this Court.

¶25

Pursuant to the directions given by this Court, learned AAG has submitted a factual report, wherein it is mentioned that after solemnizing marriage with the respondent No.8, petitioner’s son started living with her in Surat, Gujarat. Around two to three months ago, the respondent No.8 went to Bihar and never returned, then the petitioner’s son went to Bihar from Gujarat.

¶26

It is also stated that in relation to missing of his son, the petitioner did not file any report or complaint at Police Station

[2024:RJ-JD:4071-DB]

[HC-21/2024]

(3 of 3)

Bagdi Nagar and has directly filed this writ petition before this Court. It is further stated that no offfence of abduction has been committed in the jurisdiction of Police Station Bagdi Nagar, where the petitioner resides.

¶31

We have perused the affidavit (Annexure-2) filed by the petitioner along with this writ petition, wherein it is nowhere stated that the private respondents had abducted the petitioner’s son from the place, where the petitioner resides. In the affidavit, it is also stated that petitioner’s son went to Bihar and the private respondents have illegally detained him and now asking ransom of Rs.36 lakhs. From the other documents such as representation filed by the petitioner before the concerned authorities at Aurangabad, Bihar, it is clear that the petitioner’s son has illegally been detained in Aurangabad, Bihar.

¶32

Taking into consideration the above facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the view that the petitioner’s son went to Bihar to his in-laws house on his own, where he has allegedly been detained and, therefore, this Court has no jurisdiction to issue writ of habeas corpus, however, the petitioner is free to take appropriate proceedings before the competent Court in Bihar.

¶33

With these observations, this habeas corpus petition is disposed of.

¶34

(RAJENDRA PRAKASH SONI),J

¶35

(VIJAY BISHNOI),J

¶36

34-Anshul/-

Bhera Ram v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bhera Ram 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

Chanda Kanwar Vs State of Rajasthan

Sharvan Nath Sidh Vs State of Rajasthan

Rajni Kardam Vs Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan

Kiran Devi Vs the State of Rajasthan

Danaram Vs the State of Rajasthan

Rajesh Kumar Vs the State of Rajasthan