Rajasthan High Court
Narayan Jat Son Of Late Shri ... vs State Of Rajasthan on 2 May, 2022
Bench: Manindra Mohan Shrivastava, Sameer Jain
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
D.B. Habeas Corpus Petition No. 57/2022
Narayan Jat Son Of Late Shri Ghasiram, Aged About 75 Years,
Resident Of 52, Devanda Ki Dhani Chirani, Tehsil Sanganer,
Jaipur (Raj.)
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Home Secretary,
Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur (Raj.)
2. Director General Of Police, Police Headquarter, Jaipur
(Raj.)
3. Additional Director General Of Police, Anti Human
Trafficking, Unit Jaipur (Raj.)
4. Superintendent Of Police, Jaipur Rural, Jaipur (Raj.)
5. S.H.O. Of Police Station Sej, District Jaipur (Raj.)
6. Madan Sharma Son Of Gopal, Resident Of Mahapura,
D.P.S. Ke Samne, Petrol Pump Ke Pichhe, Jaipur (Raj.)
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. M.S. Choudhary Advocate
For State : Ms. Rekha Madnani, Additional
Government Advocate
For Respondent No.6 : Mr. Virender Godara Advocate.
Mr. Satya Pal Singh, CI, Station House
Officer, Police Station, SEZ,
Mr. Suresh Kumar, SI, Police Station
Pachpadra,
Mr. Tagaram, Head Constable, are
present in person.
HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MR. MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SAMEER JAIN
Judgment / Order
02/05/2022
Heard.
Mr. Suresh Kumar, Sub Inspector, Station House Officer of
Police Station Pachpadra, District Barmer is also present along
with the records of the enquiry/investigation carried out in the
matter so far.
(2 of 3) [HC-57/2022]
According to the allegations contained in the writ petition,
the missing son (Ramesh) of the petitioner had dispute with
respondent No.6 with regard to payment of his wages as he was
under employment of the respondent No.6. According to the
allegations made in the writ petition, the deceased had gone to
respondent No.6 and thereafter, he went missing and as he was
not traceable, writ petition came to be filed for tracing out the
missing son (Ramesh) of the petitioner and producing him before
the Court.
Learned State counsel has placed before this Court a status
report dated 01.05.2022 which shows that the missing person
(Ramesh) is being traced at different places and number of calls
have been traced through the Cyber Cell that he talked to his
brother and friends. Learned State counsel would further submit
that much after alleged date, the son (Ramesh) of the petitioner
had gone missing, on 26.09.2021 he appeared before the Station
House Officer of Police Station, Sez, District Jaipur in connection
with a theft and was interrogated and thereafter, he was released.
Another occasion also arose for interrogating him in
connection with another criminal case, but it is stated that he was
not taken into custody.
From the status report dated 01.05.2022 and what has been
stated by the learned State counsel and the contents of the
record, it is found that so far, the allegation of the petitioner that
respondent No.6 has illegally detained the son (Ramesh) of the
petitioner is not borne out. It is also stated that the son (Ramesh)
of the petitioner is a person of criminal background and against
him number of criminal cases have been registered. Even after, he
went missing, he again appeared for interrogation before the
(3 of 3) [HC-57/2022]
police in different police stations. The statements of the brother of
missing person (Ramesh) and his friend, which have been
recorded by the police during enquiry/investigation, also do not
reveal that in the mobile call, he made allegation of he being kept
in wrongful confinement by respondent No.6.
With the aforesaid material having been placed before us, we
do not find that there is any basis for us to come to the conclusion
that respondent No.6 has kept the son (Ramesh) of the petitioner
in illegal detention. It is relevant to mention that statement of
respondent No.6 has also been recorded and the missing son
(Ramesh) of the petitioner was not found in the custody of
respondent No.6.
Taking into consideration the entire material as it stands
today, we are not inclined to keep this matter further pending.
However, as the son (Ramesh) of the petitioner is missing,
the respondent-Station House Officer of Police Station Pachpadra,
District Barmer shall make all efforts to trace and recover the son
(Ramesh) of the petitioner and after he is recovered, to act in
accordance with law because the missing person (Ramesh) is said
to be mature, aged about 27 years.
With the observations made herein above and the direction
to trace and recover son (Ramesh) of the petitioner, we are not
inclined to pass any further order in this matter at this stage. The
petition is, therefore, disposed off with liberty to revive, in case
eventuality so arises.
Status report dated 01.05.2022 shall form part of the record.
(SAMEER JAIN),J (MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA),ACTING CJ
Sanjay Kumawat-16
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
