High Court Karnataka High Court

Sri Shatrudhan Singh vs State By Commissioner Of Police on 24 April, 2008

Karnataka High Court
Sri Shatrudhan Singh vs State By Commissioner Of Police on 24 April, 2008
Author: D.V.Shylendra Kumar R.B.Naik
1 WPHC52.08

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT 

ml: I-IOIPBLE MR. JUSTICE    "  'V

mu-no THIS 'rm: 2433 mm? or APRIL. 2008:  Q

PRESENT:

ms Howsm ma; .-!§vI8'1'i'('.:J_1'."'i?.!. 3   :2

WRIT pmmox u1g]%v'%'§§.a3 of w'    

Eetween:

SRL SHATRUDHAN sI1s1:,1sB:,«*  V
ELLENAHA 1,23,' BEc;1:R=§;oAI3,A_w.

PETITIONER

BA!§GALOE§E_vCI%19{';' 
   Shaikh, Adv.,]

$'.:rA';:r5: BY' comvixssioumn OF POLICE,

fC}§*'§TI_€}E 'OF THE VQHOMMISSIONER

OF ¥*OL.IC':§§§, INFANTRY ROAD,

*  ~BA:*agA1,'o_g'E,__

~--  éNs%¥Ei:%i*oR;=b?~* POLICE,
...HULIMA\r'§5' POLICE smmon,

FIULEMAVU, BANGALORE.

; .. , LMR. JI:'FENDRA,

RGED ABOUT 20 YEARS,

"-3,10 JAYARAMU,

R/O NO. 17559,

SATHISH COMPOUND,
ELLENAHALLI, BEGUR ROAD,
BANGALORE CITY. RESPONDENTS

[By Sri. Ramps}: Kumar, HCGP for R1 & R2]

2 WPI-iC’52.08
THIS WRIT PETITION iS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 85 227

OF’ THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA BY THE ADV. FOR THE
PE’I’I’I’IONER PRAYING TO ORDER FOR ISSUANCE 09* WRIT OF
HABEAUS CORPUS OR SUCH OTHER WRIT OF Dzkscmm 012
ORDER AS THE COURT MAY SEEM FIT D1RECT;’NC’««.._”r-312
RESPONDENTS TO CAUSE THE PRODUCTION OF’ P_E3T_I’£’IO’PJER’S
DAUGHTER KUMARI RENUSHREE EN COURT AND: D1’§%.’:’..jt’m£4-sC’
THEM TO HAND OVER THE CUSTODY OF’ THE”P_ET1TiO!*€ER–‘S
DAUGHTER KUMARI KHUSBOO TO THE .”P’ETIT!ONEi?A 1_N”=
ACCORDANCE WITH LAW RESPEC’I’FUI,-LYAND I

TI-{£8 PETITION COMING on Fo1§i4.o1§?.DE’Rs[‘T1§i1s.,,DAf_;”
SHYLENDRA KUMAR, 4., MADE ‘I’HE4_FOLLQWING:-1=’*- _ I * ~

onneg %
In this writ of the
Constitution of India, writ of habeas

Corpus nf ieinor girl by name Ms.

Khushbec petitioner, notice had been

issued to t11e”‘;’espCt1deni:s”—– State by the Commissioner of

V’P(§l ice, Hulimavu Police Station and a

prifiafes’ name Mr. Jitendra who it is alleged in

the of petition had caused kidnapping of the

and that she was in forcible custody of the

etc.,.

@/

3 WPHCSZOB

2. Sri. Ramesh. Kumar, learned Government Pleader
appearing for respondents 1 and 2 however
that the respondents 1 and 2 may require sonae’
to fileasuitable replyinthis ” ‘ ‘A

3. Sri. Mohammed Usman V ~ _ V’
the petitioner asserted
apprehended the :4 the
kidnappers ineluding and at the

same time they ‘ girl to be in

their mi-def flépersons were produced
before the Magistrate while

remanded the tecustody, had ordered that the

may in the State nehabilitation

4. ” Kumar, learned Government Plwder

has subgtfitted that such order came to be passed on

V

4 WPHC52.08

5. The respondents 1 and ‘2 on being appfisedriidlqout
issue of notice caused production of the

the rehabilitation centre.

6. Ms. Khushboo, the minor in. V’
before the court. Petitioner”‘~er V. Shel?!’ “‘Singh–‘?i
father of the minor grl _S’mt.n{ of

the minor girl are also the court.

7. It is on:.jbei1;§1If..offs’:*es;5pondents 1 and :2 that
these eejbjétion for the minor gr}

joirljngviiier * i

8. ‘;’v’u’e_ eiiciteci the girl her willingness and

was to any harsh ueatment while

‘then centre or while in the custody of the

V V’ _ Police. not complained of any ill treatment either

_f;)5,; ege relice or from the rehabilitation centre and has

.’ her willingness to join her parents.

9. In the circumstances, we direct that the minor girl

he handed over to the custody of her parents – her natural

%/

5 WPI-{(352.08

guardians who have also assured us that they would
proper care of their daughter henceforth. ‘4 ‘V ‘V

10. Before parting with this case, we are
observe that in such cases where
kidnapped or kept in forceful ty
and the Police acting as an locates
them and are
parents, the Pofiogggay of the minor

to join the anxious to get
back the permission of the
Magsuate produce the accused persons

and at the satae.,tifi1eVseek;_3permission for remand of minor

V’home___«or rehabilitation centre and if the

kidnapped person and the minor

so ‘indicate the Magistrate, may seek for release or

the entnrnhsttzlyent of the minor to the custody of the parents

‘ force the minor to stay in the remand home or

‘ K the rehabilitation centre. This course of action can

fpossibly avoid further unple.-asant experience to the minor

children in the remand home or at the rehabiiitation

6 WPI-{(352.08

centre which is being forced on the minor childierhich

could further uaumafize the already beleaguered.”

1 1. It is also necessary to observe that

emuemvmwmwmhannmsmmmfieewmiafimedge

and should not either give anevimpression t11a.t77Lhe i;iS*~ ”

also accused or treat such on-. other
accused persons. T11e__._’i”§?o1ic.§e in mind
while handling 111iI1or_.0r:’_ adolescefit V who are

victims of Qfid whnv’ei’e”‘not involved in any
crime

12. Accoi*ding1y;’ pefition is disposed of.

Sdfl{_
Eedge
Sd/-

Judge:

ii Ank-