PATHAN ANWARBHAI GAMBHIRBHAI Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner has approached this Court on 20/4/2022. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor had objected to entertaining this petition on the ground that this must have been a counterblast to the girl's application. Thereafter, on 22/4/2022, the following order was passed:-

(2.) Noticing the order passed by the learned Single Judge in Special Criminal Application No. 3973 of 2022 on 21/4/2022, we had called for the latest details from Karanj police station as to what steps have been taken on the basis of the application moved on 5/4/2022. As given to understand, the father had approached the police station on 6/4/2022 declaring the missing of his daughter, whereas, the the girl had already approached Karanj police station on 5/4/2022.

(3.) The application moved by the corpus was received on 6/4/2022, which also makes a mention that on 18/5/2022 under the Special Marriage Act , she is already married with the son of the present petitioner. The police has also noted from her application that there is no untoward incident noted. Therefore, the complaint of the father has been filed. We notice that this petition has been preferred on 19/4/2022 by the father of Salman, who is allegedly to be under the illegal confinement and illegal detention. On 13/4/2022, Special Criminal Application No. 3973 of 2022 has been preferred. It is quite unlikely, therefore, that the present applicant would not have known about these developments, which have taken place from 4/4/2022. He also, while approaching this Court, has mentioned that he has not heard of his son from 4/4/2022 and, therefore, he has an apprehension that the son has been confined against his will and wish. Admittedly, they were residing together and, therefore, when he has approached this Court with a specific plea of his being in illegal and wrongful confinement, pleading ignorance of is presence questioning on the part of his silence from 4/4/2022 to 19/4/2022 is questionable. Although admitted to be explained by Mr. Bankim Patel, learned advocate for the applicant, by saying that there was no foul play on the part of the petitioner, who was apprehensive of his son's safety, more particularly, when one of the members of the Taluka Panchayat had called for him, and he was also oblivious of the developments, which have taken place before this Court as also before the police, without accepting this as a palatable explanation, we chose not to impose the cost. However, noticing the developments, which have taken place before this Court, it is quite unlikely that the petitioner father would have been unaware of what all that had transpired before the Court of law as well as before the authorities. Therefore, as we have only enquired, we have sought assistance of learned Additional Public Prosecutor noticing the fact that on the day on which the matter was taken up before the learned Single Judge, the Karanj police station was not contacted and their inquiry has been completed with grant of protection to the couple on 27/4/2022. We prefer not to say anything in respect of this grant,which is a week after the Court's direction.