Krishan Kumar Sharma S/O Kailash ... vs State Of Rajasthan
2022 Latest Caselaw 2806 Raj/2

           HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
                       BENCH AT JAIPUR

             D.B. Civil Miscellaneous Application No. 33/2022
                                            In
                   D.B. Habeas Corpus Petition No.368/2021
  Krishan Kumar Sharma S/o Kailash Chand Sharma, Aged About 21
  Years, R/o Village And Post Vidhani, Tehsil Sanganer, District Jaipur
  (Raj.)
                                                                           ----Petitioner
                                        Versus
  1.       State    Of   Rajasthan,       Through         Home       Secretary,    Govt.
           Secretariat, Jaipur.
  2.       Commissioner Of Police, Jaipur
  3.       Station House Officer, Police Station Bhankrota, Jaipur.
  4.       Chanda Devi W/o Prahlad Mehta, R/o Mukandpura Road,
           Bhankrota, Jaipur.
  5.       Prahlad Mehta S/o Gopal Mehta, R/o Mukandpura Road,
           Bhankrota, Jaipur.
  6.       Santosh Kumar Sharma S/o Gopal Mehta, R/o Mukandpura
           Road, Bhankrota, Jaipur.
  7.       Jugal Kishore Sharma S/o Gopal Mehta, R/o Mukandpura
           Road, Bhankrota, Jaipur.
  8.       Neetu     Sharma       W/o     Manoj       Shamra,        R/o    Bhambhori,
           Mukundpura, Police Station Bhankrota, Jaipur.
  9.       Neelu Sharma           W/o   Mahesh         Sharma, R/o          Bhambhori,
           Mukundpura, Police Station Bhankrota, Jaipur.
  10.      The Additional Director General Of Police, Anti Human
           Trafficking Unit, Jaipur.
                                                                      ----Respondents

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Mahendra Kumar Saini Advocate.

HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MR. MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BIRENDRA KUMAR

Judgment / Order

01/04/2022

Heard.

(2 of 2) [WMAP-33/2022]

Learned counsel for the applicant-petitioner would submit that

this case was decided by this Court on 21.01.2022 and the counsel

could not make submission before the Court with regard to the

bonafide of the applicant-petitioner in approaching the Court seeking

issuance of writ of habeas corpus. It is vehemently argued by the

learned counsel for the applicant-petitioner that though in this case,

applicant-petitioner's wife has left his house and had gone missing,

the applicant-petitioner approached the Court under the bonafide

belief that his wife was forcibly taken away from the house. It is only

when the wife turned up to give statement before the Court then it

came to the light for the first time that she had gone to her parental

house voluntarily and that she was not kept in illegal detention.

We have given our anxious consideration to detailed and

elaborate submissions made by the learned counsel for the

applicant-petitioner taking into consideration that cost has been

imposed by us on the applicant-petitioner.

We find that cost of Rs.25,000/- was imposed on the applicant-

petitioner because of his conduct of abusing the process of law. The

findings in this case are clearly recorded earlier by us.

After giving all considerations to the submissions which have

now been made by the learned counsel for the applicant-petitioner

before us, in the background of the case and in view of what has

been stated by the applicant-petitioner's wife before this Court, we

are not inclined to interfere with our order.

Application is, therefore, rejected.

(BIRENDRA KUMAR),J (MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA),ACTING CJ

Sanjay Kumawat-2

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)