Dismissed

Ravi Kumar v. the State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC23 Jan 2024HC/421/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner challenged the illegal detention of a woman under live-in relationship agreements. Police investigation revealed the woman resides with her parents. The High Court, finding no evidence of illegal detention, held no case for interference was made out and dismissed the petition.

What did the court decide?

The instant habeas corpus petition is dismissed as no case for interference is made out given that the corpus resides with her parents and is not in illegal detention.

Ravi Kumar Vs the State of Rajasthan — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Rajasthan HC (2024)

¶1

[2024:RJ-JD:3487-DB]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶3

D.B. Habeas Corpus Petition No. 421/2023

¶4

Ravi Kumar S/o Bhatiram, Aged About 24 Years, Resident Of Maliyon Ka Bandha, Tehsil Phalodi, District Phalodi.

¶5

----Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

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

¶8

The Superintendent Of Police, District Phalodi. 3. The Station House Officer (Sho), Police Station P.s. Phalodi, District Phalodi.

¶9

Mewaram, Resident Of Sewghar, District Barmer.

¶10

Jasraj S/o Meghraj, Resident Of Sewghar, District Barmer.

¶11

----Respondents

¶12

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Abhijeet Sharma through VC For Respondent(s) : Mr. A.R. Malkhani, PP Mr. Jagrama Ram, ASI, P.S. Phalodi, District Phalodi.

¶13

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

¶14

Order

¶15

23/01/2024

¶16

This habeas corpus petition is filed by the petitioner alleging that he and the corpus were in relationship and also executed a live-in-relationship agreement at Phalodi on 04.08.2023, however later on, the private respondents, who are the cousins of the corpus, approached them and gave false assurance to the petitioner and his family that the marriage of the corpus would be solemnized with him very soon.

¶17

It is submitted that in view of the said promise, the petitioner agreed and allowed the corpus to accompany the

[2024:RJ-JD:3487-DB]

[HC-421/2023]

(2 of 2)

private respondents on 14.08.2023, however later on, when the petitioner tried to contact with the corpus, the respondents have not allowed him to meet the corpus. It is submitted that the corpus is in illegal detention of the private respondents.

¶22

Pursuant to the directions given by this Court, learned Public Prosecutor has submitted a factual report and stated that the police are in receipt of a complaint filed by the petitioner alleging that the private respondents have illegally detained the corpus and in relation to that, the police started investigation and recorded statement of the corpus on 21.01.2024. In the said statement, the corpus has stated that though she went with the petitioner, but now she is residing with her parents and is not in illegal detention of anybody. It is not in dispute that the corpus is major.

¶23

Having gone through the statement of the corpus recorded by the police on 21.01.2024, we are of the opinion that the corpus is not in illegal detention of anybody.

¶24

Hence, no case for interference by this Court is made out and the instant habeas corpus petition is hereby dismissed.

¶25

(RAJENDRA PRAKASH SONI),J

¶26

(VIJAY BISHNOI),J

¶27

33-nitin/divyaJ/-

Ravi Kumar v. the State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ravi Kumar 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

Pappu @ Purkharam Son of Surtaji Vs State Ofrajasthan

Shrimati Manju Vs State of Rajasthan

Krishan Kumar Vs the State of Rajasthan

Mukesh Bhartia Vs Marwar Gramin Bank

Mukesh Bhartia Vs Marwar Gramin Bank

Mukesh Bartia Vs Bikaner Kshetriya Gramin Bank