KANTABEN NATUBHAI ZAWALA BARIYA Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Habeas Corpus petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, has been preferred by the petitioner with a prayer to direct respondent No.2 - Police Inspector, Naranpura Police Station, Ahmedabad to produce the corpus of her minor daughter, Shilpa, aged about fifteen years before this Court.

(2.) It is the case of the petitioner that she and her husband live at Ahmedabad. However, prior to the festival of Holi, the petitioner, her husband and four children had gone to their native place at Dahod and her eldest daughter Shilpa was at home at Ahmedabad with her younger brother aged thirteen years. Two days before the Holi festival, respondent No.4, aged twenty five years, allegedly kidnapped Shraddha with a malafide intention, luring her with a promise of marriage. Shilpa was taken away from the house by respondent No.4. Her younger brother, who is only a child, was unable to do anything, though he tried to make inquiries. When the petitioner returned to Ahmedabad from Dahod on 30/9/2017, it was the day of Dussehra. She came to know about that Shilpa was missing from the house. They went to the Naranpura Police Station but, according to the petitioner, the Police personnel did not give them a proper response and nor did they lodge a complaint. It is further submitted that respondents Nos.3 to 6 are headstrong persons having considerable influence and are causing harassment to the petitioner and her family members, time and again. Under the circumstances, the petitioner has approached this Court.

(3.) Rule was issued in the petition on 12/10/2017, making it returnable on 10/11/2017. On the returnable date, the corpus was produced before us. We interacted with the corpus, Shilpa, in Chambers, as recorded in the order dtd. 10/11/2017. She stated that she has exchanged the flower garlands with respondent No.4 at the Pavagadh temple and, according to her, is married to respondent No.4. Upon our asking her regarding her age, the corpus has stated that she is aged twenty two years. However, she could not substantiate that claim by producing any document.