Delhi High Court
Ravi vs State (Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi) & ... on 2 April, 2014
Author: Sanjiv Khanna
$~4
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of decision: 2nd April, 2014
+ W.P.(CRL) 448/2014
RAVI ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Lal Bahadur Pandey, Advocate
versus
STATE (GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI) & OTHERS... Respondents
Through: Mr. Saleem Ahmed, Standing
Counsel (Crl.) for the State with
Ms. Charu Dalal, Advocate.
Insp. Rajesh Kumar Mishra, SHO
with SI Deepale Purohit,
PS Sultanpuri.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.P. MITTAL
JUDGMENT
SANJIV KHANNA J. (ORAL)
1. This is a writ of habeas corpus for direction to produce Anand
Rao, younger brother of the petitioner, stated to be 17 years of age.
Petitioner Ravi, it is stated, is a resident of village Naya Gaon, Post
Chahaundaghat, Main Post office Ram Nagar, PS Jahangirganj,
District Ambedkar Nagar, U.P. had reached Delhi on 23.12.2013,
to trace out and locate his brother Anand Rao.
2. In the writ petition it is alleged that on local inquiry the petitioner
came to know that on 20.12.2013 at 7:00 p.m. some unknown
persons had given beating to Anand Rao and handed him over to
the local police officers of Police Station Sultanpuri.
3. The writ petition was listed for the first time before the Court on
03.03.2014 when on advance notice appearance was made on
behalf of the State. On the said date itself, on behalf of
Respondent/State it was submitted that Anand Rao was
apprehended on 21.12.2013 in FIR No.893/2012 recorded at Police
Station Sultanpuri, under Sections 376(2)/511 of the Indian Penal
Code, 1860 and Section 10 of the Protection of Children from
Sexual Offences Act, 2012. Anand Rao's sister Sangeeta, wife of
Dharmender was duly informed about his detention/arrest. Anand
Rao was produced before the Juvenile Justice Board for age
verification and as per the opinion/order passed by the said Board,
Anand Rao was major as on the date of occurrence and
accordingly, thereafter he was shifted to Tihar Jail. Charge sheet in
the said FIR was filed in the Court on 19.02.2014.
4. In view of the said position, the respondent/State was asked to file
Affidavit.
5. Respondent/State in the Affidavit has stated and given details of
the case in which Anand Rao has been arrested and facts relating to
FIR No.873/2013. The Police Control Room (PCR) form
regarding incident of dated 20.12.2013 at 10:06 p.m. has also been
filed. Copy of the FIR and apprehension memo has been enclosed.
6. In the counter affidavit, it is stated that on 21.12.2013 Anand Rao
was produced before Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board,
Sewa Kutir, Kingsway Camp, New Delhi and was sent to
protective custody at Sewa Kutir, Kingsway Camp, New Delhi.
The mulakat register kept at Kingsway Camp, New Delhi has been
examined and checked. On 27.12.2013 Anand Rao's family
members i.e., his father (Ram Baksh), brother-in-law
(Dharmender) and sister (Ishramati) had met him. Similarly, on
07.02.2014 Indrawati (sister) and Mukesh (brother) of Anand Rao
had met him at Sewa Kutir, Kingsway Camp, New Delhi. On
14.02.2014 Anand Rao was declared major by the Juvenile Justice
Board and was shifted to Tihar Jail as per orders. On 15.02.2014
Anand Rao was produced before Metropolitan Magistrate, Rohini
Court, Delhi and sent to judicial custody. On completion of the
investigation charge sheet was filed and is pending trial before the
Additional Sessions Judge, Rohini Court, Delhi.
7. In the rejoinder affidavit petitioner has submitted that he had made
a complaint dated 30.12.2013 but the same was posted on
04.01.2014. It is also alleged that Anand Rao is a minor. Further,
Israwati was not the real sister of Anand Rao but daughter of his
Aunt (bua). Similarly, Mukesh is not real brother of Anand Rao but
son of his Aunt (bua). Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner
accepts that father of Anand Rao, i.e. Ram Baksh had also met
Anand Rao in the Sewa Kutir, Kingsway Camp, New Delhi but he
submits that he was under threat and pressure.
8. We have considered the submissions raised by the petitioner but
did not find any merit in the same. It is apparent that the petitioner
was fully aware of the arrest/detention of Anand Rao and the fact
that he was produced before Juvenile Justice Board at Sewa Kurit
and then housed at Sewa Kutir, Kingsway Camp, New Delhi. At
that time family members of the petitioner including father of the
petitioner and Anand Rao, had visited him in the Camp. It is also
clear that at the time of apprehension/detention of Anand Rao,
Sangeeta (sister), i.e. daughter of Aunt of Anand Rao was
informed. This is recorded in the apprehension memo itself.
9. On the question of age, the same has already been decided/opined
by the Juvenile Justice Board. In case and if Anand Rao is
aggrieved by the said order, it is open to him to take appropriate
steps as per law.
10. We are also of the view that the petitioner was aware of the true
facts and concealed the same in the writ petition. However,
noticing the fact that the petitioner is a villager, we are inclined to
give him benefit of doubt and do not impose costs.
11. The writ petition stands dismissed.
(SANJIV KHANNA)
JUDGE
(G.P. MITTAL)
JUDGE
APRIL 02, 2014
vk
