Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 2167 (MAD)

Patel Sureshbhai v. Commissioner of Police

2003-12-30

body2003
Judgment : M. Karpagavinayagam, J. 1. Patel Sureshbhai and Patel Kanubhai have filed these habeas corpus petitions, praying for production of their daughters, namely Patel Bhavika and Patel Pinal respectively, before this Court and to entrust their custody to them. 2. The other Division Bench of this Court, while directing the learned Additional Public Prosecutor to take notice in these habeas corpus petitions, by order dated 24.12.2003, directed that the girls be retained in Chennai and need not be removed outside the State and that the girls be produced before this Court on 30.12.2003. 3. Accordingly, both the girls, namely Patel Bhavika and Patel Pinal have been produced before this Court. Both their fathers, namely Patel Sureshbhai and Patel Kanubhai, the petitioners herein, were also present and filed separate affidavits today, requesting for custody of their daughters. 4. According to Patel Sureshbhai, the petitioner in H.C.P.No. 1825 of 2003, his daughter, minor Patel Bhavika, aged 16 years, is studying in XI Std. at Hiramanak Umya Vidhyalaya School, Kolal, Gandhi Nagar District, Gujarat, that his father Kantilal, mother Bapuben and his cousin brother Ramesh Patel are residing in U.S.A., that since they requested his daughter to send U.S.A. for further study, he expressed his desire to his friend, that one person, by name Ashok Bhai at Ahmedabad informed him that he wi ll arrange for Passport and Visa to U.S.A. for his daughter, that he was further informed by that person that the petitioner’s daughter will have to go over to Madras for getting visa etc., that he accordingly allowed his daughter along with her uncle, to go along with Ashok Bhai, that on 23.11.2003, the agent as well as the uncle came to Madras and the Madras agent took his daughter to American Embassy, that the required documents were produced in the Embassy, that the Embassy retained the agent as well as the petitioner’s daughter on the reason that the particulars given in the documents given by the agent are not correct, that the daughter as well as the agent were handed over to the Police Commissioner by the Embassy Officers, that the Police Commissioner arrested the agent and produced him before the Court and that, in the meantime, the petitioner’s daughter was detained at Juvenile Welfare Board, the second respondent herein. 5. 5. According to Patel Kanubhai, the petitioner in H.C.P. No. 1826 of 2003, his daughter, minor Patel Pinal, aged 17 years, is studying in XII Std. at Navasajan Higher Secondary School, Ramp, Ahmedabad, Gujarat, that his father Dayabhai and mother Sharbaben are residing in U.S.A., that since they requested his daughter to send U.S.A. for further study, he expressed his desire to his friend, that one person, by name Ashok Bhai at Ahmedabad informed him that he will arrange for Passport and Visa to U.S.A. fo r his daughter, that he was further informed by that person that the petitioner’s daughter will have to go over to Madras for getting Visa etc., that he accordingly allowed his daughter along with her uncle, to go along with Ashok Bhai, that on 23.11.2003, the agent as well as the uncle came to Madras and the Madras agent took his daughter to American Embassy, that the required documents were produced in the Embassy, that the Embassy retained the agent as well as the petitioner’s daughter on the reason that the particulars given in the documents given by the agent are not correct, that the daughter as well as the agent were handed over to the Police Commissioner by the Embassy Officers, that the Police Commissioner arrested the agent and produced him before the Court and that, in the meantime, the petitioner’s daughter was detained at Juvenile Welfare Board, the second respondent herein. 6. On coming to know of the fact that the petitioners’ daughters were detained by the Juvenile Welfare Board, both the petitioners came to Madras and saw their daughters in the Board and they have filed application before the second respondent on 16.12.2003, requesting the Board for release of their daughters and they made further request on 19.12.2003 also. But however, the Juvenile Welfare Board declined to release the petitioners’ daughters. Hence, both the petitioners have filed these habeas corpus pe titions seeking fro production of their daughters before this Court and entrusting the custody of their daughters to them. 7. Today, the girls have been produced before us. Through a translator, we have enquired them and they stated that the petitioners are their fathers. Hence, both the petitioners have filed these habeas corpus pe titions seeking fro production of their daughters before this Court and entrusting the custody of their daughters to them. 7. Today, the girls have been produced before us. Through a translator, we have enquired them and they stated that the petitioners are their fathers. Apart from their affidavits, both the petitioners have produced documents such as ration card, Election Commission’s Voter’s Identity Card and school certificate to show that both the minor girls, namely Patel Bhavika, aged 16 years and Patel Pinal, aged 17 years, are the daughters of the petitioners, namely Patel Sureshbhai and Patel Kanubhai respectively. 8. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor says that since a gang is operating in the racket for getting Visa on giving false particulars, investigation is being conducted in that line and some of the accused have already been arrested and some of the accused are absconding. 9. Admittedly, the minor girls, namely Patel Bhaavika and Patel Pinal are not the accused. Actually they are the victims. Under those circumstances, it is unnecessary to detain them in the Juvenile Welfare Board at Chennai, the second respondent herein or to transfer them to Juvenile Welfare Board at Ahmedabad as per the orders passed by Chennai Committee. 10. Consequently, we have to hold that they need not be detained in Juvenile Welfare Board at Ahmedabad in pursuance of the order passed by the Juvenile Welfare Board, the second respondent, since we are satisfied that the victim girls, namely Patel Bhavika, aged about 16 years and Patel Pinal, aged about 17 years, are the daughters of the respective petitioners, on the basis of the statements given by the petitioners in the open Court and also on the basis of the answers given by the victim girls. 11. We have also gone through the affidavits filed by the respective petitioners today. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor has not placed any material to show that as on date, the petitioners are accused in any case. Therefore, this Court is of the view that the custody of the girls can be entrusted to their respective fathers, the petitioners. Both the affidavits sworn to by the petitions would show that they have given undertaking that they would produce their respective daughters as and when required by the respondents or by any Court in which any proceeding is likely to be initiated. Both the affidavits sworn to by the petitions would show that they have given undertaking that they would produce their respective daughters as and when required by the respondents or by any Court in which any proceeding is likely to be initiated. The petitioners must be available for interrogation by the investigating officer as and when required. Accordingly, the habeas corpus petitions are allowed.