Mohammad Rafiq, J.

This habeas corpus petition has been filed by petitioner-Budhi Prakash Saini inter alia with the prayer that respondents be directed to release his son from their illegal custody of police.

2. Facts of the case are that a first information report was registered on 28.6.2016 for offence u/s.363 IPC to the Police Station Shyam Nagar at the behest of one Jagdish Sharma, father of one Miss Deepshiksha, stating therein that her daughter aged 15 years, had gone out for attending coaching classes on 27.6.2016 at 3.00 PM and she has not yet returned back. In the FIR, it was alleged that enquiry from coaching centre transpired that Deepshikha did not reach the coaching centre. Manish, the maternal cousin of Vishnu enquired from the son of the informant whether Deepshikha has come back home from coaching. Wife of the informant received a call at 7.11 PM and then again at 7.54 PM, from cell no.8947891312, on which a female, who disclosed her identity as Priya, enquired whether Deepshikha has come back from the coaching centre. When informant's wife talked to that girl, she disclosed her name as Neetu, sister of Vishnu. When the informant went to their residence, family members of Vishnu misbehaved with them. It was stated in the FIR that informant's daughter Deepshikha has gone in a scooter-Honda DLX RJ 19 SW 6785 and taken with her a sum of Rs.30,000, a mobile handset of Samsung make and her clothes.

3. That the Police on receiving clue that Deepshikha was seen on a scooty with Vishnu, chased them and brought them to the Police Station at 10.30 PM on 7.7.2016. Statement of Deepshikha was recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. According to the police, in view of her statement, offence u/s.363 and 366 was made out against Vishnu. In view of statement of prosecutrix Deepshikha recorded us.161 Cr.P.C. and considering her age, however, offence of Section 8 of the POCSO Act, 2012 was added to the pending investigation. Deepshikha was handed over to the police. The police demanded from the Judicial Magistrate remand of accused Vishnu for 15 days. The Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate No.15, Jaipur Metropolitan by order dated 8.7.2016 remanded accused Vishnu to judicial custody till 22.7.2016. Statement of Deepshikha was recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. on 11.7.2016. In her statement, Deepshikha admitted that she accompanied Vishnu on her scooty from Jaipur to Behror, then to Delhi and thereafter Haridwar. Accused Vishnu stripped her naked, touched her body and wanted to make physical contact with her, but due to resistance posed by her, he could not succeed in making physical relations with her. Thereafter, they returned back to Jaipur where she stayed with accused Vishnu's sister at different places. She was made to sign documents showing that she had voluntarily accompanied Vishnu and then she went to Police Station along with Vishnu where on their askance in which, she stated that she accompanied Vishnu with free will, but in the conclusive part of her statement, she stated that Vishnu and his family members got few papers signed from her by misleading her and that she did not want to marry Vishnu and wanted to go to her parents.

4. That the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate No.15, Jaipur Metropolitan, Jaipur extended judicial custody of son of petitioner upto 5.8.2016 by order dated 22.7.2016. Petitioner applied for bail under Section 437 Cr.P.C. before the Court of Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate No.15, Jaipur Metropolitan, who however returned the same to the petitioner on the premise that since offence of Section 8 of the POCSO Act, 2012 has been added, therefore, the application should be filed in the competent court. Petitioner instead of filing application under Section 437/439 in the Court concerned, has approached this Court by filing the present habeas corpus petition.

5. Shri Hemant Nahta, learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that remand has been granted by the same Court