Laxman Lal vs The State Of Rajasthan
2022 Latest Caselaw 11248 Raj

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR D.B. Habeas Corpus Petition No. 247/2022

Laxman Lal S/o Shri Shiv Ratan Ji Mali, Aged About 55 Years, R/o Kalandari, Tehsil And District Sirohi.

----Petitioner Versus

1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through District Magistrate, Sirohi (Raj.).

2. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Superintendent Of Police, Sirohi (Raj.).

3. Kanhaiya Lal S/o Kalidan Vaishnav, R/o Mamavali Tehsil And District Sirohi.

4. Vinod S/o Kalidan Vaishnav, R/o Antroli Road Kadodara, Surat (Gujrat).

----Respondents

For Petitioner(s) : Mr Shyam Sunder Ladrecha

For Respondent(s) : Mr M.A.Siddiqui, GA-cum-AAG assisted by A.R.Malkani Mr Chander Sen Rathore

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAY BISHNOI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI

Judgment / Order

08/09/2022

The matter is listed under 'To Be Mentioned' Category.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that in

the order dated 07.09.2022, it has wrongly been mentioned that

the daughter of the petitioner is voluntarily residing with

respondent No.4 as his wife and she is not in his illegal

confinement. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted

that in fact the petitioner's daughter got married with respondent

No.3 Kanhaiya Lal and is voluntarily living with him as his wife. He

(2 of 2) [HC-247/2022]

has, therefore, prayed that necessary correction/modification in

the order dated 07.09.2022 may be made.

Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the

case and in view of the letter of S.H.O., Police Station, Kalandri,

District Sirohi dated 07.09.2022, wherein it is mentioned that the

daughter of the petitioner got married with respondent No.3

Kanhaiya Lal and is living with him as his wife, we are of the

opinion that the aforesaid mistake is nothing but a bonafide one

and the same requires rectification.

Hence, it is ordered that the aforesaid mistake is

rectified and in place of respondent No.4 mentioned in para Nos.

3, 4 and 5 of the order dated 07.09.2022, 'respondent No.3'

may be read.

It is made clear that the daughter of the petitioner is

not in illegal confinement of respondent No.3 or anybody.

(FARJAND ALI),J (VIJAY BISHNOI),J

masif/-PS

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)