HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN
Honble narendra kumar jain, j. AND Honble Mrs. Meena V. Gomber, j.
HRIDYA NARAYAN SINGH
Versus
STATE OF RAJASTHAN
D. B. Habeas Corpus Petition Nos. 6097 and 6089 of 2009,
Decided On : March 26, 2010
Writ petitions dismissed.
( 1 ) THESE two writ petitions of habeas corpus have been filed by Smt. Sangita Singh and by Dr. Rajan Agarwal for the release of Dr. H. N. Singh and Dr. Girish Agrawal respectively. Since both the petitions challenge common orders (Annex. P/2) passed by A. C. J. M. ,hindaun city, Distt. Karauli, in criminal case No. 483/09, (now after committal, pending as Sessions case No. 59/09 before the Addl. Sessions Judge (Fast Track), Hindaun city), hence are being disposed off together.
( 2 ) BY way of these petitions, the petitioners have challenged (i) various remand orders passed on 14. 6. 09 and thereafter from time to time as well as the order dated 18. 8. 09 taking cognizance by ACJM, Hindaun City, in criminal case No. 483/2009 (Annex. P/1) and sessions case No. 59/09 pending in the court of ADJ (Fast Track), Hindaun City; and (ii) have sought declaration that the detention of Dr. H. N. Singh, husband of Sangita Singh and Girish Agrawal,father of Rajan Agrawal,in pursuance of remand orders passed by ACJM,hindaun city and further custody remanded by the trial Court is unlawful. Certified copies of order sheets drawn by ACJM Court and trial Court have been annexed as Annexure-P/1 and P/2 respectively.
( 3 ) THE facts giving rise to these writ petitions are that a written report, alleging that petitioners who are doctors by profession, running their private hospitals in Hindaun city, are engaged in illegal trading and sale of human blood of minor innocent children and the same is extracted by enticing and intoxicating them.
( 4 ) IN nutshell, the report lodged at P. S. Hindaun city by Sh. Bachhu resident of village Mahu and a driver by profession, was that about a fortnight ago, one Rakesh Koli also of Mahu village engaged in this business, brought his son Manoj and Buddha (both minors) to Hindaun, under the pretext of showing them Cinema. He then took them to the petitioners privately run hospitals named "rajgirish" hospital and "tirupati" hospital. Manoj was taken to Rajgirish hospital where he was made to meet the petitioner Dr. H. N. Singh,who administered him a tablet so as to sedate him. When Manoj started having the effect of sedation, he was sent by Dr. Girish Agarwal to his old house situated near "ganda Naala" in Hindaun city and then was taken to the first floor of that house where two bottles of blood were extracted from his body. After he came out of the sedation, he was made to drink juice and was sent away. In the same manner, Buddha minor was taken to Tirupati Hospital by Rakesh Koli where he was made to meet the staff of the hospital namely sultan, Girdhari and Pawan and two bottles of blood were extracted from his body also. He was also made to drink juice and was sent back. According to bachhu, on his return from work, Manoj and Buddha narrated the whole incident. Thereafter, he along-with both minors and Buddha's father made enquiry and then reported that the condition of both the children was bad and their lives were in danger.
( 5 ) ON the basis of said written report of Bachhu (father of minor victim manoj), an FIR No. 324/09 was initially registered at P. S. Hindaun city, Distt. Karauli for the offences punishable under Secs. 336, 308, 328 and 120b IPC and after investigation, prosecution was filed under offences punishable under various sections of Indian Penal Code namely 307, 308, 365, 336,120 (b) along with Secs. l8 (a), 18 (C) (vi), 27 (b) (d) of. the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 (hereinafter referred to be as "act of 1940") read with Rules 122e,a,f,g and schedule Part XII B (H) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Rules and Sections 23, 25 and 27 of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2000 (hereinafter referred to be as "act of 2000")against the present petitioners along with other four persons i. e. Rakesh,suraj,sultan and Raghuveer.
( 6 ) DURING investigation of the case, the petitioners were arrested and police custody remand orders were passed from time to, time and thereafter vide order dated 18. 8. 09, co
Abdul Nairn vs. State of Orissa.
State of Tamil Nadu vs. Paramasiva Pandian
Raghunath Bhagat and Anr. vs. State of Bihar
Thomas Dana vs. State of Punjab
REFERRED TO : Lakshmanrao vs. Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Vatipuram.
Ram and Shyam Company vs. State of Haryana
State of Bombay and Anr. vs. The United Motors (India) Ltd.
Kharak Singh vs. State of U.P.
Himmatlal Harilal Mehta vs. State of Madhya Pradesh
Bohar Singh vs. State of Punjab (FB)
Ram Narain Singh vs. The State of Delhi
Jeewan Kumar Raut and Anr. vs. Central Bureau of Investigation
SupremeToday
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.