HETALBEN Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the parties. The present petition is taken out for seeking writ of habeas corpus in respect of corpus Ms.Neetaben with following prayers:-

(2.) The facts, as could be seen from the contentions and the complaints with the police, would indicate that respondent no.3 and the corpus have married with each other. We hasten to add here that we are not going into the permissibility of the marriage or otherwise. The fact remains that it has been reported that they have married and, out of union, a child is born. The corpus is still minor and in the complaint registered being FIR I-C.R.No.25 of 2018, name of respondent no.3 as an accused appears by invoking the provisions of POCSO Act. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, when the minor corpus was brought before the Court, she was carrying two months old infant. On 1.8.2019, the Court passed following order:-

(3.) Today, we once again inquired of the corpus and examined the entire situation. Counsel for the petitioner submitted that none from the petitioner side is present in the Court and, he could not indicate any cogent reason for resisting the submissions made on behalf of respondent nos.4 to 10 for supporting the corpus and the infant. The Court was faced with the situation where there was an accused is in custody facing the charge of offence under POCSO Act, as the corpus is minor and the provisions of POCSO Act are squarely attracted. As against this, the minor girl and her infant are visibly traumatized on the very concept of being separated from respondent no.4 or the parents of respondent no.3 and the very consideration of sending the corpus along with infant to Nari Sarankshan Gruh also was required to be considered in light of the fact that the infant is only two months old and would surely need not only the proper care, medication and family warmth, in absence thereof, the infant and the minor's well being may get jeopardized. In such peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the view that when the accused's parents are not named as accused in FIR, for the time being, let the corpus and the infant remain with respondent no.5, as ordered earlier, as otherwise it is likely to create a situation wherein the requisite care and caution required to infant and the minor may not be readily available. In those peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the view that in the paramount interest of the corpus and her infant, we do not disturb the present status quo position and we would review the situation after passage of some time so that, in the meantime, learned APP may ascertain the proper Nari Sanrakshan Gruh in which the care for infant and new mother could be provided. We propose to adjourn the matter for a period of eight weeks and, at the end thereof, on the next date, learned APP may give the complete details of the possible shelter home where we can consign the minor and her infant.