High Court Karnataka High Court

Mr Md Afroze Ahmed vs State Of Karnataka on 3 October, 2008

Karnataka High Court
Mr Md Afroze Ahmed vs State Of Karnataka on 3 October, 2008
Author: S.R.Bannurmath & B.V.Nagarathna
 

Present:

-rmnon*m.n:n¢x.Jus*r:wVs.1t.  'w. «. " "

Am '

-rzmaonrnm Hrs. Jusmcm  E

wRrr..._.._.... Pm 1-:93 No. i_é5_'i " 1

B.'-il'..'_"5.;.E

S/0 S1-iAbdVu1___  _  
Re$idinga1:7fKh;a§;oomL',"'V-.»  » 
Near Mus1in:'1-Hostel, V " 
B.H. Road,  "

   , 

.Deparu;mntofHomcAfl'airs,

%  Vkviéhana( '$'s£mdh.a,

    max,
*   _I_nfant1y Rom,

  The Su  tofPolicc,

Tumkur

 

...?3TI'l'IOHER



4. The Sub-inswctor of Police,
New Extension Police Station,
Thilak Park Circle,

Ttztmkur.

5. The Inspector of Police,
Frazer Town Police Station,   
Frazer Town, 
Bangalore.
6. Sri Khaiser,
S/o Samar,
R I at Rear Islamiya Magsjid,
Bangalme;  *  '-   ';   ..,:'.=.;ma1=oarw/s.
(By Smt. Geetha Menon, AGE   $5  " '

    Articks 226 and 227 of
the Conaju"t"ut:i';orzTvft;f   f:oWissue a writ in the nature of
Habeas  respondent Nos. 1 to 6 to produce Ms.

Ayesha, theV”detem1xe this Horfbie Court and to set

her at to eizstody of the petitioner.

.’ coming on for Orders this day,
the following-

9&8

u A’ writ petition is filed by the father of the detenue

that his minor daughter Smt. Ayesha Siddiqa has been

T ririesing from 26.9.2008 and in this regard, he suspects the

5/”

hand of the 63′ respondent, who was earlier tenant akang with

his family in the prcxniscs belongng to the petitioner.

2. biotic: was issued. Smt. Geetha ‘

Government Advocate, has taken noticfifi ‘(Sf

Nos. 1 to 5 and today the alleged is p;§x;x:¢cd herd»;

us. Smt. Geetha Manon has also’ of V’

the statements made, to girl as well as
the xerox -gigahomglaph of her
marriage inze} married the am
respondcfig isgégying with him voluntarily

without any pregsu:;”o£afiy« and that the allegations in. the

petiticmfiaat age waéaswk. 1d’ m. is 11100″ rmct.

with the girl. It is to be noted that she

— VV is a educated and aoooxding to her and as stated

hr;fore us 3130, it appears that she has voiuntarily k.-ft the: house

of father (the petitioner} and has married the 6*

V V’ . __ iiasjiandent

9*’

4. In View ofthe same, in our view, as the girl

and as it appeaxs that she has voluntarily taken th,-;’ =

marry the 5th respondent, the habeas cerpus nap ” ”

surv1v’ c for further eonsiacicratbn ”

dismissed.

Nsul —