Uttarakhand High Court
Sharafat Ali vs State Of Uttarakhand And Others on 17 November, 2021
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Habeas Corpus Petition No. 20 of 2021
Sharafat Ali ...........Petitioner
Vs.
State of Uttarakhand and others ........ Respondents
Present : Mr. Asif Ali, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Pratiroop Pandey, A.G.A. for the State.
JUDGMENT
Hon'ble Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral)
Instant petition has been filed seeking corpus
of Rahnuma Bi, who is the daughter of the petitioner.
2. According to the petition, the respondent no.4
abducted Rahnuma Bi from the possession of the
petitioner. The petitioner lodged an FIR under Section
363, 366 IPC on 03.06.2021 at Police Station Puranpur,
District Pilibhit. Thereafter, Rahnuma Bi and the
respondent no.4 married. They filed a Criminal Writ
Petition No. 864 of 2021, (for short, "the petition") before
this Court, seeking protection. By the order dated
10.06.2021, directions with regard to protection were
issued. According to the petitioner, thereafter, Rahnuma
Bi made various telephone calls to her family members
that the respondent no.4 is forcing her to change her
religion and given her threats to life. With these and other
averments, instant petition has been filed with the prayer
that the respondent no.4 be directed to produce the
corpus of Rahnuma Bi.
3. On 10.11.2021, on behalf of the respondent
no.4, a statement was given that Rahnuma Bi is willing to
go with her parents. On behalf of the respondent no.4,
time was also sought to produce the corpus in the Court.
4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and
perused the record.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner would
submit that, in fact, his daughter was abducted and
married by the respondent no.4. An FIR was filed, but
subsequently, they married and got protection from the
Court. It is argued that now the daughter of the petitioner
complained that she is being harassed by the respondent
no.4, as she is forced to convert her religion. Therefore,
the corpus be given to the petitioner.
6. On the other hand, the learned counsel
appearing for the respondent no.4 would submit that
Rahnuma Bi, though is the wife of the respondent no.4,
but she does not want to stay with the respondent no.4.
Learned counsel would submit that earlier it was told by
the respondent no.4 to him that Rahnuma Bi wants to
stay with her parents. But, he may not give any statement
on behalf of the respondent no.4 because the instructions
are not clear. Learned counsel submits that Rahnuma Bi
is present before the Court and her statement may be
recorded.
7. Rahnuma Bi is present before the Court, as
identified by the learned counsel for the petitioner and
learned counsel appearing for the respondent no.4. In
answer to the questions posed by the Court, Rahnuma Bi
states as hereunder:-
"Question 1:- Are you under any Pressure?
Answer :- No.
Question 2:- You feel free to tell, whatever you
want.
Answer :- Who will listen to me?
Question 3:- The Court will listen to you, you may
tell the Court.
Answer :- I have left my parents' house to stay
with Kishan Sarkar. But, in the
house of Kishan Sarkar, I felt some
problems, I informed my parents.
Question 4:- Have you been forcibly detained by
Kishan Sarkar in his house.
Answer :- No.
Question 5:- Can you move freely anywhere,
wherever you want to go?
Answer :- Yes, I can move freely. But, Kishan
Sarkar wants me to lead a life as per
his wishes.
Question 6:- What is your age?
Answer :- I am 18 years old."
8. This is a habeas corpus petition. The petitioner
claimed that his daughter Rahnuma Bi, who is present
before the Court has been forcibly detained by the
respondent no.4. Rahnuma Bi, in open Court has stated
that she is not under any restraint by Kishan Sarkar. She
is free to move, wherever she wants to move. Since,
Rahnuma Bi is a major, undoubtedly she is free to go,
wherever she wants to go. Therefore, there is no
substance in this habeas corpus petition and it deserves
to be dismissed.
9. The habeas corpus petition is dismissed.
(Ravindra Maithani, J.)
17.11.2021
Sanjay
