Smt. Ranjana Kumari vs The State of Bihar and Others

Birendra Prasad Sinha, J.—This is an application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India by one Ranjana Kumari with a prayer for the issuance of a writ of habeas corpus directing the respondents to release the petitioner from illegal detention from the Remand Home. The petitioner claims that her age is about twenty years and she has attained majority. It is further stated that she married one Suresh Thakur of village Raghopur Talkka Police Station-Bibhutipur in the district of Samastipur at her own sweet will. She was married at Dhanbad where her father and the brother in-law of Suresh Thakur were posted. The marriage took place in a Shiv Temple according to the Hindu rites and thereafter they began to live like husband and wife. It is further stated that when the parent of the petitioner came to know about the said marriage they became furious and brought her to the village home forcibly and married her for the second time with one Shailendra Prasad Singh against her will. After fifteen days, the petitioner came back from her new Saswal and after getting some opportunity, she left the house of her parent and came to the house of Suresh Thakur with whom she had married earlier. It is alleged that on 8.12.1987, one Gokhlesh Prasad Sharma, uncle of the petitioner forcibly took her in his custody with the help of the police and her husband Suresh Thakur was arrested by the police. The first information report was lodged against the said Suresh Thakur by Gokhlesh Prasad Sharma. The petitioner was sent to Remand Home, Patna by an order dated 11.12.1987 by the Court of the Sub divisional Judicial Magistrate, Barh. It appears that the Sub divisional Judicial Magistrate, Barh in Bakhtiarpur P.S. Case No. 230 of 1987 u/s 366 of the Indian Penal Code directed that the petitioner should be medically examined and should be kept in the Remand Home, Patna.

The petitioner has filed this application for habeas corpus on 8.1.1988. On 12.1.88, the matter came before us. We called for the medical report of the petitioner from the Court of Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Barb. When the said medical report did not come until 20th of January, 1988, we directed that a reminder be sent to respondent Nos. 2 and 3 for sending the medical report of the petitioner. Learned counsel for the State was also asked to take steps to inform the parents of the petitioner to be present in Court. On 28.1.88 when the matter again came before us, we found that the medical report had not been sent and the girl also bad not been produced as directed by us We then directed the Superintendent of Remand Home, Patna to produce the girl in Court on 2nd of February, 1988. On 2nd of February, 1988, the petitioner was produced in Court and identified by Smt. Indu Advocate appearing for her. The authorities concerned did not send the medical report even upto that date. We, thereafter admitted this application for final hearing.

Learned counsel for the respondents in the absence of any instruction throughout shows his inability to produce any document with regard to the age of the petitioner. It is unfortunate that inspite of our several directions neither the Sub divisional Judicial Magistrate, Barh nor the Police have cared to send the medical report of the petitioner showing her age. To say the least, such careless attitude on the part of the authorities must be condemned. However, it has been asserted in this application that the petitioner has attained the age of about twenty years and she had married out of her own sweet will alter she became adult. The girl was produced before us on the last occasion and alter seeing her, we were also of the opinion that she was major. No counter affidavit in this regard has been filed on behalf of the State and there is no charge against the petitioner for which she can be detained in the Jail or in the Remand Home. Any person, who becomes major, has the right of free movement if he/she has not committed any crime. There is nothing to indicate that the petitioner has committed any crime. As such, no restriction can be put on her as regards her free movement. I do not find any reason as to why she should be retained in the Remand Home. That being so, this application is allowed and respondent No. 2 i.e. the Superintendent of Remand Home, Patna is directed to release the petitioner forthwith. She will be free to go any place of her own choice.