Research › Search › Judgment

Gujarat High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 1250 (GUJ)

Abdul Kader Ganimiya Shaikh v. State of Gujarat

2017-07-04

A.J.SHASTRI, ABHILASHA KUMARI

body2017
ORDER : ABHILASHA KUMARI, J. 1. This habeas corpus petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, has been preferred by the petitioner with a prayer to direct the respondent No. 2-Police Inspector, Wadi Police Station, District: Vadodara, to initiate steps in furtherance of the First Information Report (‘FIR’, for short) lodged by the petitioner and to produce the corpus Ashrabanu, who is the daughter of the petitioner. 2. It is the case of the petitioner that the corpus, who is aged about 17 years and 10 months, went missing from her uncle's place where she had gone to attend a wedding ceremony, on 25.02.2017 It is further stated that the corpus had good relations with one Shahrukh Garasiya and his mother Tinuben. Respondent No. 4-Abdul Rehman @ Sanjay @ Sagma Rajvatsinh Darbar frequently visited the house of Shahrukh Garasiya. It was found that the respondent No. 4 was also found missing from his residence from 22.05.2017 As the phone of respondent No. 4 was found to be switched off, the petitioner filed a complaint, being I-C.R No. 60 of 2017, which was registered with the Wadi Police City Police Station, against the respondent No. 4 for the offences under Sections 363 and 366 of the Indian Penal Code. On 31.05.2017, the Investigating Agency came to know regarding the involvement of two other persons in the offence, namely the sister and brother-in-law of the respondent No. 4 who had already abetted the offence. A report was filed for the addition of Sections 8 and 12 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 [‘POCSO’, for short]. As the investigation did not result in the apprehension of respondent No. 4, for the protection of the corpus, the petitioner approached this Court by way of the present petition. 3. This Court has heard Ms. Amrita Ajmera, learned advocate for Mr. Daifraz Havewala, learned advocate for the petitioner and Mr. Ronak Raval, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent State. It is submitted by learned Additional Public Prosecutor that respondent No. 4 is in police custody. 4. Taking into consideration the nature of the case and the age of the corpus, who is a minor, we considered it prudent to speak to the corpus in Chambers. We are shocked at what the corpus has disclosed. It is submitted by learned Additional Public Prosecutor that respondent No. 4 is in police custody. 4. Taking into consideration the nature of the case and the age of the corpus, who is a minor, we considered it prudent to speak to the corpus in Chambers. We are shocked at what the corpus has disclosed. The corpus has informed us that she was forcibly abducted by respondent No. 4, who gave her some sort of intoxicant, which made her lose her senses. She was taken from place to place by respondent No. 4 and kept in confinement. She has further revealed that respondent No. 4 used to force her to take liquor, which she had never touched before. He forcibly had physical relations with her. The corpus has further informed us that respondent No. 4 used to threaten her that he would cause harm to her parents and younger brother and that he would kill her father, uncle and family members, including her younger brother if she did not do as he told. She has stated that respondent No. 4 also used to beat her. The corpus has further stated that respondent No. 4 had forcibly taken away all her original certificates. The corpus has disclosed that apart from keeping her in an almost unconsciousness condition by forcibly making her to consume liquor or mixing some intoxicant substance in sweets, which were fed to her, the corpus was subjected to some “TantrikVidhi” by respondent No. 4 to keep her under his control and power. 5. The corpus has stated that respondent No. 4 had planned to sell her to somebody for an amount of Rs. 5/- lakhs. She has further stated that respondent No. 4, who is aged about 40 years, used to boast that he had lured several other girls and would continue to do so in future. She also stated that respondent No. 4 used to keep her under lock and key and did not allow her to be in contact with anyone. She has stated that it was with great difficulty that she somehow managed to convince a Maulana to inform her parents regarding her condition and whereabouts. Upon receiving information from the said Maulana, the petitioner and his wife came to the place where the Maulana had brought the corpus, and took her away. She has stated that it was with great difficulty that she somehow managed to convince a Maulana to inform her parents regarding her condition and whereabouts. Upon receiving information from the said Maulana, the petitioner and his wife came to the place where the Maulana had brought the corpus, and took her away. The Maulana who rescued the corpus retrieved the original documents of the corpus, which are now with the petitioner. The original birth certificate of the corpus has been handed over to the police. 6. The corpus has stated that she wants to go to her parents and has reiterated that she had never voluntarily accompanied the respondent No. 4. 7. Considering the above facts and circumstances, we hand over the custody of the corpus to the petitioner and his wife, who are present before us. 8. The police authorities shall extend all possible help to the corpus and her family, if required in future, in the event that respondent No. 4 or any other person at his behest, may harass either the corpus or her family members. 9. With the above observations and directions, the petition stands allowed. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent. 10. It is, however, clarified that any observations made in the present order, are in the context of the present habeas corpus petition. 11. Direct service of this order is permitted.