Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR, RATNAKER BHENGRA, JJ.
Pratap Ekka, S/o-Shanti Mangal Ekka – Appellant
Versus
State of Jharkhand – Respondent
W.P. (Cr.) (HB) No. 486 of 2021
Decided on : 24-01-2022
Habeas Corpus - Illegal Confinement - - Idrish Mohd. v. Memam and another (2000) 10 SCC 333, Soni Gerry v. Gerry Douglas (2018) 2 SCC 197, Gian Devi v. Superintendent, Nari Niketan, Delhi & others (1976) 3 SCC 234 - The court discussed the legal provisions related to habeas corpus and illegal confinement, emphasizing the right of a major individual to make their own choices and enjoy freedom as permitted by law. The court's decision was influenced by the lack of corroboration for the petitioner's claims and the false statements made by the petitioner.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought a writ of Habeas Corpus to produce 'X' from the illegal custody of her father, claiming that she was being kept in illegal confinement against her wishes and consent.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner's claims lacked corroboration and that he had made false statements. It dismissed the habeas corpus petition, holding that the petitioner had no locus to maintain the petition.
Issues: Illegal confinement, Lack of corroboration for petitioner's claims, False statements made by the petitioner
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the right of a major individual to make their own choices and enjoy freedom as permitted by law. It held that without corroboration for the petitioner's claims, the habeas corpus petition could not be maintained.
Final Decision: W.P.(Cr.)(HB)No. 486 of 2021 is dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
Shree Chandrashekhar, J.
The petitioner claiming himself in intimate relationship with X (name of the girl is concealed by the Court and hereinafter referred to as 'X') has made the following prayers:
(b) Issue appropriate writ/order/direction the Respondent No.1 and 2 to ensure the safety and liberty of the petitioner and 'X'.”
2. The petitioner states that the girl aged about 21 years with whom he had a love affair and was planning to get married has been kept in illegal confinement by her father (respondent no. 3) in his house. 'X' being an adult has made a choice with her free will to marry him and stay with him but her father did not approve of their relationship because he belongs to scheduled tribe community. He further says that on 23rd February 2021 X' came to his place but the next day her father visited his house with police officials, threatened him of filing false cases of kidnapping and rape and therefore under their pressure 'X' agreed to go back with her father primarily with a view to save the petitioner from false cases. He further says that on 9th March 2021 X' fled away from her house and went to Mahila Thana at Kotwali PS, Ranchi but the police did not provide shelter to her rather called her parents who again took her back home. The petitioner who received this information came to Mahila Thana with his family members where he was asked to go to Jagannathpur PS but there also the police advised him not to pursue the case and threatened him with registration of false cases against him. The petitioner further states that 'X' approached him and asked him to get protection from the Court. She also informed him that her parents might file false case against him and therefore he should approach the Court. In support of the aforesaid statements, the petitioner has annexed copies of messages from 'X' and a copy of the letter written to the Superintendent of Police, Ranchi sent through e-Mail on 19th November 2021.
3. On 13th January 2022, the following order was passed by this Court:
2. This is a habeas corpus petition seeking an extraordinary relief of production of 'X' from the illegal custody of her father.
3. Mr. Arpit Sharma, the learned counsel appears for the petitioner but in course of hearing we find that he is not properly equipped with instructions. The learned counsel explains to us that he is not the counsel in the matter rather has been authorized by Mr. Shailesh Poddar, the learned counsel for the petitioner, who is on his legs in Court No.9 to assist the Court in item No.8.
4. We have waited till 11:00 AM for appearance of Mr. Shailesh Poddar, the learned counsel for the petitioner but he failed to make his appearance before us. Constrained, we are postponing hearing of this writ petition (criminal) till recess.
5. The matter shall appear at 02:15 PM.
6. Mr. Shailesh Poddar, the learned counsel for the petitioner shall remain present in the Court through virtual mode at 02:15 PM.
7. After the recess, Mr. Shailesh Poddar, the learned counsel for the petitioner has joined the Court proceeding.
8. In course of hearing, Mr. Shailesh Poddar, the learned counsel for the petitioner has given certain informations to us which are not recorded in the writ petition. On the question of delay in filing this habeas corpus WP (Cr.) No. 486 of 2021 petition, we find that there is no satisfactory explanation given by the petitioner. Plainly speaking, this writ petition is bereft of foundational facts on certain aspects. Still, believi
The right of a major individual to make their own choices and enjoy freedom as permitted by law.
Habeas corpus petitions require foundational facts and supporting evidence, especially in sensitive matters such as marriage disputes.
The central legal point established in the judgment is the recognition of an individual's freedom to make decisions as an adult, particularly in the context of a relationship dispute.
The legal principle established is that the age of the victim is paramount in determining the legality of confinement, particularly in cases involving potential harm and protection of minors.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
