Research › Search › Judgment

Gujarat High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 1031 (GUJ)

RAMESHBHAI SAVABHAI CHAUDHARY v. STATE OF GUJARAT

2018-08-29

A.G.URAIZEE, S.R.BRAHMBHATT

body2018
JUDGMENT/ORDER : S.R. Brahmbhatt, J. The petitioner, who happens to be husband of the corpus - Ms. Rekhaben, has taken out this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for seeking writ of Habeas Corpus on the strength of the averments made in the petition to the effect that said Rekhaben is illegally confined and prevented from joining the petitioner. 2. This Court on 21/08/2018 passed the following order:- "1. Learned advocate appearing for the petitioner has invited Court's attention to the fact that an earlier occasion, the habeas corpus petition, being Special Criminal Application No.4360 of 2018 failed as the corpus i.e. respondent No.6 - Rtekhaben expressly indicated that she has not been illegally confined by any one, but, that statement before the Court was not free from any coercion or duress. He invited the Court's attention to the averments made on oath in this application and the transcription of the telephonic talk indicating that how and in what manner the respondent No.6 is being tortured and she is under lawful confinement of her parents. He also submitted that the petitioner is ready and willing to deposit a sum of Rs. 15,000/- by way of costs so that in case if the Court comes to the conclusion that the petition ought not to have been filed and he has pressed any frivolous contentions, the said amount be fastened to respondent No.6 by way of costs. 2. We are of the view that if the confinement of the respondent No.6 is against her will and if the petitioner is correctly make statement qua illegal confinement, the respondent No.6 deserves to be called before the Court. Hence, let there be Rule, returnable on 29th August, 2018. 3. The concerned Police Inspector - respondent No.3 shall see to it that on the returnable date, Rekhaben Savabhai Munji be brought before the Court, failing which, appropriate action taken report be filed. 4. Notice of rule be processed after deposit of aforesaid amount of Rs. 15,000/-. It goes without saying that Rs. 15,000/- deposit in the Court shall be governed by any further order that may be passed by the Court. Direct service through concerned police station." 3. 4. Notice of rule be processed after deposit of aforesaid amount of Rs. 15,000/-. It goes without saying that Rs. 15,000/- deposit in the Court shall be governed by any further order that may be passed by the Court. Direct service through concerned police station." 3. The aforesaid order was required to be passed as on earlier occasion the very petitioner's petition being Special Criminal Application No.4360 of 2018 was required to be disposed of vide order dated 11/06/2018 because at that time said Rekhaben stated that she would like to remain with her father. The said order is produced on the compilation at page No.34, which deserves to be reproduced hereunder :- "1. In response to the directions issued by this court, the respondent No.6 - Rekhaben Savabhai Munji is personally present before this court. The court has ascertained the correct position from her in the chamber. She has stated that she was already married earlier and that the petitioner had forcibly abducted her and taken her away. She has denied that she has married the petitioner or that she is his wife. She has categorically stated that she does not know the petitioner. She has further stated that she is residing with her father and brother of her own volition and that she is not under unlawful confinement by anyone. 2. In view of the categorical statement made by Rekhaben that she was already married and that she has not married the petitioner and that she is not unlawfully confined by anyone, no case is made out for issuance of a writ of habeas corpus. 3. The petition, therefore, fails and is, accordingly, dismissed." 4. Today, corpus is present before the Court. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner urged the Court that the corpus appears to be under tremendous pressure and the documents including the C.D. Recording, which is prescription of talk between the corpus and the petitioner, would indicate that the corpus is under tremendous pressure and therefore, this Court may ascertain appropriately from the corpus about her willingness because she is being brought from the parent's house and therefore, she is under coercion and pressure and not indicate correct facts. 6. In that view of the matter, we requested our Court Master to inquire from the Corpus and she inquired and informed us that the corpus is willing to join the petitioner herein - her husband. 6. In that view of the matter, we requested our Court Master to inquire from the Corpus and she inquired and informed us that the corpus is willing to join the petitioner herein - her husband. We also inquired of the corpus in the open Court and she in unequivocal and clear terms stated that she would like to be with the petitioner herein as she was prevented from joining the petitioner. 7. On account of earlier order of this Court recording version of the corpus which was different, this Court inquired of the counsel present in the Court to assist the Court on behalf of the Corpus so that appropriate version of the corpus be placed on record by way of affidavit. 8. Mr. B.Y. Mankad, learned counsel volunteered and requested the Court to keep the matter at 2.30 PM and accordingly this matter was kept at 2.30 PM. 9. At 2.30 PM, Mr. Mankad, learned advocate placed on record affidavit of the Corpus which is in vernacular, that is known to the corpus, in which it is clearly stated that how and under what circumstances earlier she was compelled to make the statement and it was not reflective of her correct desire and now she desire to join the petitioner herein. 10. In that view of the matter, we dispose of the present petition and now the corpus is to join the petitioner. 11. Mr. Dipen Chaudhary, learned advocate appearing for Mr. Tushar Chaudhary, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the respondent Nos.4 and 5 assures the Court that there will not be any harassment of any nature to the corpus or the petitioner, as the corpus has clearly shown her willingness to join the present petitioner. 12. Learned counsel for the petitioner, at this stage, submitted that there appears to be constant coercion and threats and life and liberty of the corpus as well as the petitioner are in danger and therefore appropriate directions be issued. 13. We are of the view that it would be open to the corpus and the petitioner, in case of any untoward incident or any threat or coercion of any nature, to approach the concerned police authorities for seeking appropriate protection and help. 14. We acknowledge the assistance rendered by Mr. B.Y. Mankad, learned advocate in this matter as amicus curie. Rule is made absolute accordingly. Amount of Rs. 14. We acknowledge the assistance rendered by Mr. B.Y. Mankad, learned advocate in this matter as amicus curie. Rule is made absolute accordingly. Amount of Rs. 15,000/- deposited in this proceedings, be refunded to the petitioner on proper verification and identification.