Rajasthan High Court
Deepak Kumar S/O Shri Devicharn ... vs The State Of Rajasthan on 16 May, 2022
Bench: Pankaj Bhandari, Anoop Kumar Dhand
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
D.B. Habeas Corpus Petition No. 95/2022
Deepak Kumar S/o Shri Devicharn Garg, Aged About 38 Years,
Resident of 81/36, Patel Marg, Mansarover Jaipur.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. The State Of Rajasthan, through Commissioner Of Police,
Jaipur, Rajasthan.
2. Additional Director General Of Police, Anti Human Trafficking
Unit Jaipur, Rajasthan.
3. Director General Of Police, Crime Branch, Jaipur Rajasthan.
4. SHO, Shipra Path Police Station, Jaipur, Rajasthan.
5. Nemichand Mangal, R/o P-147, Galla Mandi, Near Bajaj
Agency, Morena, Madhya Pradesh.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Yadunandan Bansal
For State : Mr. N.S. Gurjar, Assistant Government
Advocate
Mr. Mahaveer Singh Rathore, C.I.,
SHO Police Station Shipra Path, Jaipur
(South).
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PANKAJ BHANDARI
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND
Order
16/05/2022
1. Petitioner has preferred this Habeas Corpus Petition inter alia
praying that the corpus who happens to be his wife and his son,
be produced before the Court and set them at liberty.
2. It is contended by counsel for the petitioner that petitioner's
wife went to her parents' home and was to return back but she did
not return and even stopped taking his phone calls.
3. The corpus i.e. wife & son of the petitioner are present in
person in the Court.
4. We have interacted with the corpus. The corpus has
expressed her wish to stay with her parents and refused to go
with the petitioner. It is evident from the documents on record
(2 of 2) [HC-95/2022]
that the corpus is staying with her parents since 09.12.2020 and
she has also lodged an F.I.R. against Deepak Kumar-the present
petitioner & Sudha Devi Garg-her mother-in-law. It is also evident
from the documents on record that the date of birth of the son of
petitioner is 25.07.2017 who is below five years of age.
5. Counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on "Sheila B.
Das vs. P.R. Sugasree (2006) 3 Supreme Court Cases 62" &
"Mausami Moitra Ganguli vs Jayanti Ganguli (2008) 7 SCC
673." It is argued that in the above mentioned cases, custody of
the child was given to the father.
6. We have considered the contentions.
7. The judgments referred to by counsel for the petitioner, were
the cases, where child were more than five years of age and in the
present case, the child is less than five years of age and for last
one year and five months the corpus is staying with his mother.
8. Since the corpus-wife has refused to go with the petitioner,
we are not inclined to entertain the present Habeas Corpus
Petition.
9. Habeas Corpus Petition is accordingly dismissed.
10. This Court while issuing notices to the respondents, directed
the petitioner to deposit demand draft of Rs.25,000/- in favour of
the Registrar General, Rajasthan High Court, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur
with the Registrar (Judicial). Since, the present Habeas Corpus
Petition is dismissed, Registrar (Judicial), Rajasthan High Court,
Jaipur Bench, Jaipur, is directed to pay a sum of Rs.25,000/- to
the corpus.
(ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J (PANKAJ BHANDARI),J
AMIT KUMAR /2
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
