Research › Search › Judgment

Delhi High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 1122 (DEL)

Ravi v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi)

2014-04-02

G.P.MITTAL, SANJIV KHANNA

body2014
Judgment Sanjiv Khanna J. 1. This is a writ of habeas corpus for direction to produce Anand Rao, younger brother of the petitioner, stated to be 17 years of age. Petitioner Ravi, it is stated, is a resident of village Naya Gaon, Post Chahaundaghat, Main Post office Ram Nagar, PS Jahangirganj, District Ambedkar Nagar, U.P. had reached Delhi on 23.12.2013, to trace out and locate his brother Anand Rao. 2. In the writ petition it is alleged that on local inquiry the petitioner came to know that on 20.12.2013 at 7:00 p.m. some unknown persons had given beating to Anand Rao and handed him over to the local police officers of Police Station Sultanpuri. 3. The writ petition was listed for the first time before the Court on 03.03.2014 when on advance notice appearance was made on behalf of the State. On the said date itself, on behalf of Respondent/State it was submitted that Anand Rao was apprehended on 21.12.2013 in FIR No.893/2012 recorded at Police Station Sultanpuri, under Sections 376 (2)/511 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Section 10 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012. Anand Rao’s sister Sangeeta, wife of Dharmender was duly informed about his detention/arrest. Anand Rao was produced before the Juvenile Justice Board for age verification and as per the opinion/order passed by the said Board, Anand Rao was major as on the date of occurrence and accordingly, thereafter he was shifted to Tihar Jail. Charge sheet in the said FIR was filed in the Court on 19.02.2014. 4. In view of the said position, the respondent/State was asked to file Affidavit. 5. Respondent/State in the Affidavit has stated and given details of the case in which Anand Rao has been arrested and facts relating to FIR No.873/2013. The Police Control Room (PCR) form regarding incident of dated 20.12.2013 at 10:06 p.m. has also been filed. Copy of the FIR and apprehension memo has been enclosed. 6. In the counter affidavit, it is stated that on 21.12.2013 Anand Rao was produced before Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Sewa Kutir, Kingsway Camp, New Delhi and was sent to protective custody at Sewa Kutir, Kingsway Camp, New Delhi. The mulakat register kept at Kingsway Camp, New Delhi has been examined and checked. On 27.12.2013 Anand Rao’s family members i.e., his father (Ram Baksh), brother-in-law (Dharmender) and sister (Ishramati) had met him. The mulakat register kept at Kingsway Camp, New Delhi has been examined and checked. On 27.12.2013 Anand Rao’s family members i.e., his father (Ram Baksh), brother-in-law (Dharmender) and sister (Ishramati) had met him. Similarly, on 07.02.2014 Indrawati (sister) and Mukesh (brother) of Anand Rao had met him at Sewa Kutir, Kingsway Camp, New Delhi. On 14.02.2014 Anand Rao was declared major by the Juvenile Justice Board and was shifted to Tihar Jail as per orders. On 15.02.2014 Anand Rao was produced before Metropolitan Magistrate, Rohini Court, Delhi and sent to judicial custody. On completion of the investigation charge sheet was filed and is pending trial before the Additional Sessions Judge, Rohini Court, Delhi. 7. In the rejoinder affidavit petitioner has submitted that he had made a complaint dated 30.12.2013 but the same was posted on 04.01.2014. It is also alleged that Anand Rao is a minor. Further, Israwati was not the real sister of Anand Rao but daughter of his Aunt (bua). Similarly, Mukesh is not real brother of Anand Rao but son of his Aunt (bua). Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner accepts that father of Anand Rao, i.e. Ram Baksh had also met Anand Rao in the Sewa Kutir, Kingsway Camp, New Delhi but he submits that he was under threat and pressure. 8. We have considered the submissions raised by the petitioner but did not find any merit in the same. It is apparent that the petitioner was fully aware of the arrest/detention of Anand Rao and the fact that he was produced before Juvenile Justice Board at Sewa Kurit and then housed at Sewa Kutir, Kingsway Camp, New Delhi. At that time family members of the petitioner including father of the petitioner and Anand Rao, had visited him in the Camp. It is also clear that at the time of apprehension/detention of Anand Rao, Sangeeta (sister), i.e. daughter of Aunt of Anand Rao was informed. This is recorded in the apprehension memo itself. 9. On the question of age, the same has already been decided/opined by the Juvenile Justice Board. In case and if Anand Rao is aggrieved by the said order, it is open to him to take appropriate steps as per law. 10. We are also of the view that the petitioner was aware of the true facts and concealed the same in the writ petition. In case and if Anand Rao is aggrieved by the said order, it is open to him to take appropriate steps as per law. 10. We are also of the view that the petitioner was aware of the true facts and concealed the same in the writ petition. However, noticing the fact that the petitioner is a villager, we are inclined to give him benefit of doubt and do not impose costs. 11. The writ petition stands dismissed.