MUBARIK HUSSAIN Vs. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner has approached this Court seeking the following reliefs:-

(2.) An F.I.R. was lodged by respondent no. 3, Sadhna Tyagi, Incharge Station House Officer, A.H.T.U., Haridwar on 13.07.2017, alleging therein that on receiving an information regarding immoral trafficking activities going on at Piran Kaliyar area, she reached P.S. Piran Kaliyar and recorded the same in the general diary. She took the Station House Officer and other constables from P.S. Piran Kaliyar with her. Information was also received through mukhbir khas (special informant) that in the guest house in the name of Azad Sabri and Sath Sabri, an illegal sex racket is going on. An effort was made to take independent witnesses, but as no one was ready for the same, a raid was conducted at the said guest house. During checking, from one room a person, namely, Sakib was taken into custody and a lady, namely, Salma along with him was also taken into custody. When another room was raided, the person from that room ran away, but the lady, along with the above person, namely, Monisha was taken into custody. On asking, she told that the person ran away is Mubarik Ali Thekedar (petitioner), who is resident of Mahmoodpur Kaliyar. He used to bring her in hotel by giving her Rs. 500/-. Thereafter, another person from another room, namely, Murtaza was taken into custody along with a lady, namely, Ruksar and, thereafter, from another room a person, namely, Arshad was arrested and the lady accompanying him was also taken into custody, who disclosed her name as, Neelam. Thereafter, impugned F.I.R. was lodged on the basis of the said raid.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is not named in the F.I.R. and he was nowhere present near the guest house when such raid was conducted and, merely, on the basis of confessional statement of Monisha, he has been implicated. He submitted that Monisha in her statement has stated that the person accompanying her was Mubarik Ali Thekedar. Learned counsel for the petitioner submited that, in fact, it is Mubarik Ali, who is named in the F.I.R. and not the petitioner, whose name is Mubarik Hussain, therefore, on the basis of that statement the petitioner cannot be implicated.