Rajasthan High Court
Lokesh Pareek Son Of Mukesh Kumar ... vs State Of Rajasthan on 10 June, 2021
Bench: Pankaj Bhandari (V.J.), Chandra Kumar (V.J.)
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
D.B. Habeas Corpus Petition No. 178/2021
Lokesh Pareek Son Of Mukesh Kumar Pareek, Aged About 23
Years, Resident Of 142, Dev Dhara Colony, Murlipura Scheme,
Murlipura, Jaipur (Rajasthan)
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Secretary,
Department Of Home, Government Of Rajasthan,
Government Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. The Additional Director General Of Police, Anti Human
Trafficking Unit, Jaipur (Rajasthan)
3. The Director General Of Police, Rajasthan, Jaipur.
4. Superintendent Of Police, Churu, (Rajasthan)
5. Station House Officer, Police Station Sandwa, District
Churu (Rajasthan)
6. Munshi Kalal Son Of Malu Khan, R/o Sandwa, Police
Station Sandwa, District Churu (Rajasthan)
7. Aadil Khan Son Of Munshi Kalal, R/o Sandwa, Police
Station Sandwa, District Churu (Rajasthan)
8. Ibrahim Son Of Malu Khan, R/o Sandwa, Police Station
Sandwa, District Churu (Rajasthan)
9. Shaukat Son Of Malu Khan, R/o Sandwa, Police Station
Sandwa, District Churu (Rajasthan)
10. Ramjan Ali Khan Son Of Malu Khan, R/o Sandwa, Police
Station Sandwa, District Churu (Rajasthan)
11. Rafiq Khan Son Of Malu Khan, R/o Sandwa, Police Station
Sandwa, District Churu
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Girish Khandelwal through VC
For Respondent No.6 : Mr. Parmeshwar Pilania through VC
For State : Mr. Mangal Singh Saini, PP
Investigating Officer : Mr. Sandeep, S.I., P.S. Murlipura,
Jaipur (West)
(2 of 3) [HC-178/2021]
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PANKAJ BHANDARI (V.J.)
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRA KUMAR SONGARA (V.J.)
Judgment / Order
10/06/2021
1. Petitioner has preferred this Habeas Corpus Petition alleging
therein that he solemnized marriage on 04.05.2021 at Pracheen
Pashupati Nath Shiv Mandir, Panchkula, Haryana and that his wife
is in illegal confinement of her parents.
2. Prayer is made for recovery of the wife of petitioner from the
illegal confinement of her parents and for producing her before the
Court.
3. Mr. Parmeshwar Pilania appearing on behalf of Respondent
No.6, who is father of the corpus has stated that the corpus was
produced before the Magistrate on 27.05.2021. Her statement was
recorded by the Magistrate and as per her wish she was sent with
Respondent No.6. It is also contended that the detention cannot
be termed as an illegal detention, hence the Habeas Corpus
Petition is not maintainable.
4. To which counsel for the petitioner contends that the
petitioner is a Hindu and the corpus is a Muslim and under the
threat of Respondent No.6, the corpus has not deposed properly
before the Magistrate.
5. We have considered the contentions.
6. As far as the detention of the corpus is concerned, the same
cannot be termed as an illegal detention as she has been handed
over by the Magistrate to the Respondent No.6 and she went with
the Respondent No.6 on her own free will. If the petitioner has
any grievance with regard to his wife, he is free to approach the
(3 of 3) [HC-178/2021]
concerned Court for redressal of his grievance. No order needs to
be passed in the present Habeas Corpus Petition.
7. Accordingly, Habeas Corpus Petition is dismissed.
(CHANDRA KUMAR SONGARA (PANKAJ BHANDARI (V.J.)),J
(V.J.)),J
ARTI SHARMA /9
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
