Laxman Lal vs State Of Rajasthan
2021 Latest Caselaw 18644 Raj

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR D.B. Habeas Corpus Petition No. 321/2021 Laxman Lal S/o Nathu Lal, Aged About 56 Years, B/c Prajapat, R/o Village Samburiya, Tehsil Bheem, Distt. Rajsamand (Raj.).

----Petitioner Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary, Department Of Home, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur.

2. The Superintendent Of Police, Rajsamand.

3. The Station House Officer, Police Station Bheem, District Rajsamand.

4. Mahendra Khateek S/o Mohan Lal, B/c Khateek, R/o Village Samburiya, Tehsil Bheem, Distt. Rajsamand (Raj.).

----Respondents

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Awar Dan Ujjwal For Respondent(s) : Mr. Anil Joshi, AAG-cum-GA (Incharge) Mr. Hari Singh, Head Constable :566 Police Station- Bheem present in person

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAY BISHNOI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND Judgment / Order

08/12/2021

Pursuant to the directions given by this Court on 16.11.2021,

learned Government Advocate has submitted a factual report

alongwith the case diary.

This habeas corpus petition is filed by the petitioner alleging

that his daughter, who is eighteen years old, has been abducted

by the respondent No.4 on 12.10.2021 and she is in his illegal

detention. It is prayed that the respondent Nos.1 to 3 be directed

(2 of 3) [HC-321/2021]

to get his daughter released from the illegal detention of

respondent No.4 and she be produced before this Court.

Learned Government Advocate has submitted that the

petitioner's daughter is major and she had solemnized marriage

with the respondent No.4 as per her own free will. It is further

submitted that during the course of investigation into the missing

person report filed by the petitioner with the police, the

petitioner's daughter was searched out, however, in her police

statement, she has specifically stated that she went with the

respondent No.4 as per her own free will because her parents

were forcing her to marry another person not of her choice. In her

police statement, she has also specifically stated that she is

residing with the respondent No.4 in Ahmedabad.

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the

material available on record.

It is not in dispute that daughter of the petitioner was major

at the time when the petitioner has filed the missing person

report.

We have also perused the case diary produced by the

learned Government Advocate and also taken into consideration

the statement of petitioner's daughter, wherein she has specifically

stated that she went with the respondent No.4 as per her own free

will; solemnized marriage and living with him in Ahmedabad. The

corpus has also specifically stated in her police statement that she

has not made any statement under pressure of anyone.

Keeping in view the fact that the petitioner's daughter is

major and she is not in illegal detention of any person, we do not

(3 of 3) [HC-321/2021]

find any merit in this habeas corpus petition, which is dismissed as

such.

The factual report submitted by the learned Government

Advocate is taken on record.

(ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J (VIJAY BISHNOI),J

8-mohit/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)