Sarita Rani vs State Of Haryana And Others
2025 Latest Caselaw 4994 P&H

Citation : 2025 Latest Caselaw 4994 P&H
Judgement Date : 11 November, 2025

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Sarita Rani vs State Of Haryana And Others on 11 November, 2025

         IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
                      AT CHANDIGARH
117
                                                      CRWP-12103-2025
                                                       Decided on 11.11.2025
                                                                       .2025
Sarita
                                                              . . . Petitioner(s)
                                        Versus
State of Haryana and others                               . . . Respondent(s)

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY VASHISTH
PRESENT: Mr. Sachin Bansal,, Advocate for the petitioner.
.
                                ****
SANJAY VASHISTH,
       VASHISTH J. (Oral)

1. Present resent writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the

Constitution of India praying for issuance of writ in the nature of Habeas

Corpus directing the official respondents to get detenues mentioned in

paragraph No.4 of the petition, released from the illegal custody of

respondents No 4 to 6.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the detenue,

namely Rahul, son of Kanwat Pal, aged about 35 years years, was contacted by

respondents No. 4 to 6 in the third week of October 2025 and was lured to

work as a mason at a brick kiln situated in Villag Villagee Sisana, District Sonepat,

Haryana, on the assurance of being paid ₹35,500/- per month along with

commission of ₹50/- per thousand kachha bricks, and adequate provision for

basic amenities. However, after detenue reached the brick kiln, respondents

failed to pay the assured amount and instead offered only ₹18,000/- per

month. When detenue refused to work for the reduced wages and expressed

his desire to return to his native place at District Muzaffarnagar, Uttar

Pradesh, respondents wrongfully confined him at the worksite and are not

allowing him to leave. Therefore, learned counsel for the petitioner prays

1 of 3

2103-2025 CRWP-12103 -2-

that immediate directions be issued to rescue the detenue from the illegal

custody of respondents No. 4 to 6 and to ensure his safe return to his native nativ

place.

3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits

that he will be satisfied in case respondent No.1, who is the competent

authority in terms of Section 16 and 17 of the Bonded Labour System

(Abolition) Act, 1976 (hereinafter to be referred as 'the Act of 1976') is

directed to take decision in terms of the judgment rendered by this Court in

the case of Murti v. State of Punjab and others (LPA No. 32 of 2013,

11.01.2013). The relevant extract of the said judgment reads decided on 11.01.2013).

thus:

"It may be mentioned here that the allegations of the appellant in the writ petition are that the alleged detenues mentioned in para No.3 of the writ petition who are working as labourers at the brick kiln of respondent Nos.5 to 7 are being kept as bonded labours. There can indeed be no doubt that if a labourer has been detained as bonded labour, it amounts to an offence under Sections 16 & 17 of the Bounded Labour (Abolition) Act, 1976. We, however, clarify that the aforesaid observation does not mean that the allegations levelled by the appellant have been accepted. Suffice it to observe that under the Act, the District Magistrate is under statutory tutory obligation to hold a fact finding enquiry as and when a complaint alleging violation of the provisions of Bonded Labour (Abolition) Act, 1976 is received. Since the appellant in the instant case has specifically averred that the persons mentioned in para No.3 of the writ petition have been detained as bonded labourers, we allow this appeal and set-aside/modify aside/modify the order dated 9.1.2013 passed by the learned Single Judge to the extent that the petitioner's writ petition is

2 of 3

2103-2025 CRWP-12103 -3-

disposed of with a direction to the District Magistrate, Sangrur, to treat this writ petition as a complaint under the 1976 Act and take immediate action in accordance with law, within a period of one week from the date of receiving a certified copy of this order alongwith a copy of the he writ petition."

4. A further reference is also made to the order passed in the case

of Gurnam Singh v. State of Punjab and others (CRWP No. 4666 of

08.07.2020), which reads thus:

2020, decided on 08.07.2020),

"Accordingly, this Criminal Writ Petition is disposed of with a direction to District Magistrate, Fazilka to treat this petition as a complaint under the Bonded Labour System (Abolition) Act, 1976 and take immediate action in accordance with law, within a period of one week from the date of receiving a certifie certified d copy of this order along with a copy of the writ petition."

5. In view of the above, the instant petition is disposed of with a

direction to respondent No.1-State No.1 of Haryana through District Magistrate,

Sonepat,, to look into the grievance of the petiti petitioner, oner, as raised in the instant

petition and in case any substance in the allegations is found true, then to

take appropriate action under the Act of 1976, in accordance with law, within

a period of one week from the date of receipt of a certified copy of tthis his order

along with copy of the criminal writ petition.