Dhirubhai Naranbhai Patel, A.C.J. - (1.) THIS petition has been preferred for the issuance of writ of Habeas Corpus for release of Guria Bhagat from Nari Niketan situated at Deoghar. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the Birth Date of the petitioner is 16.04.1995. She has married with Sushanto Malakar on 5.9.2013 at a Temple situated at Pahari Mandir in the city of Ranchi. As she is a major, she cannot be detained at Nari Niketan at Deoghar. She has gone with Sushanto Malakar with her free will and consent and her statement has been recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. which is also on record of this writ petition and her detention at Nari Niketan is absolutely illegal, and therefore, the present petitioner may be released forthwith from the custody of Nari Niketan at Deoghar. Counsel for the petitioner has also taken this Court to the F.I.R. lodged by the father of the girl and the application preferred by this petitioner before the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Dhanbad for release, but the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Dhanbad has not properly appreciated the aforesaid facts specially the statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. which is at Annexure -2 to the memo of this petition.
(2.) WE have heard the counsel appearing for the State who has submitted that there is no illegal detention of the present petitioner at Nari Niketan at Deoghar. The said custody at Nari Niketan at Deoghar is by virtue of the judicial order passed by Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Dhanbad on 26.9.2013. The said order is at Annexure -3 to the memo of this petition. Thus, if the petitioner is aggrieved by the said order passed by Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Dhanbad, it can be challenged before an appropriate forum in accordance with law. But, in no circumstances, it can be said that the custody of the petitioner in the Nari Niketan, at Deoghar is an illegal custody. Having heard the counsels appearing for both the sides and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, it appears that the present petitioner had voluntarily gone as per her statement with Sushanto Malakar. Thus, the highest argument so far as allowing of this writ petition is concerned, is the statement which has been recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. We have perused the annexures filed by the petitioner and looking to these annexures, it appears that Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Dhanbad has passed initially the various orders in the month of September, 2013. One of these orders is dated 26.9.2013, whereby Judicial Magistrate, First Class Dhanbad has sent the present petitioner at Nari Niketan, at Deoghar. Thereafter, also further orders have been passed and one more detailed order passed is dt. 22.10.2013 upon the application preferred by the petitioner to be released. Thus, in no circumstances, it can be said that the custody of the petitioner with the Nari Niketan at Deoghar is an illegal custody. If the petitioner is aggrieved by the order of Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Dhanbad, she is at liberty to challenge the same in accordance with law before an appropriate forum. So far this writ of Habeas Corpus is concerned, the same is not tenable at law as the custody of the present petitioner with the Nari Niketan at Deoghar is by virtue of the order of Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Dhanbad dated 26.9.2013 and more particularly, when the application preferred by the petitioner for her release has been rejected by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Dhanbad by a detailed speaking order dated 22.10.2013. These two orders, make the custody of the petitioner with the Nari Niketan at Deoghar is a legal one. Unless these two orders are challenged in an appropriate matter before the appropriate forum as per the law applicable to the petitioner as well as the respondent, there is no substance in this writ petition. Hence, the same is hereby dismissed, reserving the liberty with the petitioner to challenge the orders passed by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Dhanbad.;