SUKHPALSING IQBALSING GIL Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Rule. Mr. R.M.Chauhan, learned Addl.P.P., waives service of rule on behalf of respondents Nos.1 to 3. Mr. Kirit Patel waives service of rule on behalf of respondent No.6. Respondents Nos.4 and 5 are said to be domestic servants of respondent No.6 and they are not found to be necessary parties and, therefore, their names are sought to be deleted by the learned counsel for the petitioner. Names of respondents Nos.4 and 5 stand deleted from the array of respondents accordingly.

(2.) In the facts and circumstances of this case, the matter is taken up for final disposal.

(3.) The present petitioner and respondent No.6 had married in January 1992. Out of this wedlock, a male child was born to them, who is named Jayrajsing. It appears that some time in the year 1995 a dispute arose between the present petitioner and respondent No.6 and they started living separately in 1995 while the boy named Jayrajsing was only one and half years old at that time. The mother of the boy Jayrajsing, namely, Pragnaben, obtained an order with regard to the custody of the child in her favour and since then the child has been living with her. The petitioner has come with the allegation that a criminal complaint was filed against his wife under the provisions of Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956 and thereupon a case was registered being C.R.No.II-3207/99 by the Police Inspector, PCB, Ahmedabad City on 22.6.99. It was further alleged that many complaints are registered against her and that she is a head strong lady. It was also alleged that she is detained under the provisions of Prevention of Anti-social Activities Act on 24.9.99 and was lodged in the Baroda Central Prison under detention as a PASA detenue. Naturally with the detention of his wife, the present petitioner, being the father of the boy, namely, Jayrajsing got worried about the fate of the child in absence of the mother, who was held up in custody as detenue and, therefore, after making efforts to know the whereabouts of the boy, he filed the present petition on 29.9.99 in the nature of habeas corpus before this Court. On 30.9.99 Special Criminal Application was entertained by a Division Bench of this Court and notice returnable on 7.10.99 was issued and it was also ordered that the necessary arrangement be made to bring respondent No.6 i.e. Pragnaben before this Court on the returnable date and further directed that respondent No.2 i.e. Police Inspector of Amraiwadi Police Station will inquire into the matter and submit the report. When the mater came up before this court on 8.10.99 it was noticed that the Court's orders were not taken in the right earnest by Amraiwadi Police Station and despite Court's order dt.30.9.99 till 7.10.99, no effective steps were taken. In the facts and circumstances, as we noticed, the job with regard to the production of the child was entrusted to the Detection Crime Branch, Ahmedabad City and for that purpose the papers were ordered to be sent on 8.10.99 to the Addl. Commissioner of Police, Detection Crime Branch, Ahmedabad City. The Detection Crime Branch has been able to trace out the boy from his Mausee (mother's sister) and today the boy named Jayrajsing has been produced before this Court by Police Inspector Mr.Tarun Barot and respondent No.6 has also been produced from Baroda Jail.