1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR -------------------------------------------------------- CIVIL WRIT No. 3873 of 2008 SMT. KESHARI BAI V/S STATE & ORS Mr. RS CHOUHAN, for the appellant / petitioner Mr. B.L.TIWARI, PP Date of Order : 7.7.2008 HON'BLE SHRI N P GUPTA,J. HON'BLE SHRI MANAK LALL MOHTA,J. ORDER ----- This habeas corpus petition has been filed by Keshari Bai wife of Reshma, alleging inter-alia that detainee Reshma has been illegally detained by the respondents for last 24 days without any reason, and that he is being given beating time and again by the police authorities. Then it was alleged that on 20.6.2008, the petitioner appeared before the Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bali, but to no avail in view of jurisdiction. Then she appeared before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pali, where she was directed to file the petition before this Court. With these averments, the habeas corpus petition has been filed for production of the detainee Reshma. This petition was filed on 23.6.2008. On 26.6.2008 notices were ordered to be issued returnable on 3.7.2008, and were ordered to be given dasti. Then on 3.7.2008, the 2 learned Government Adovcate, who appeared, submitted that the corpus is in judicial custody, and the State wants time to file reply, therefore, time was granted to file the reply, and to produce the corpus on 7.7.2008. Today, corpus has been produced, and a reply has also been filed on behalf of the State. In the reply, the allegations of illegal detension of the corpus for last 24 days before filing of the petition were denied. The stand taken in the reply is that it was informed to the Police Authorities that the corpus is involved in committing of theft, therefore, he was being searched, and on receiving information about his having been seen at Sumerpur, the SHO rushed to the identified place with police force, and arrested him on 25.6.2008, and prepared necessary documents and subsequently produced him before the learned competent Court, where-from 4 days' police remand was permitted. Then on 26.6.2008, the corpus was subjected to medical examination, and according to the medical report, he was found to be fit and healthy with no injury of any kind on the body. Then on 28.6.2008 he was again produced before the competent Court for extension of police custody, which was also allowed. Then on 29.6.2008 again he was produced before the competent Court, and the accused was sent to judicial custody. Accordingly, he is presently lodged at sub-jail Pali, District Pali in connection with FIR Case No.138/2008. Thus, according to the reply, the corpus is not under any illegal detention, but is under judicial 3 custody under orders of the competent Court in connection with a theft case being FIR Case No.138/2008. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. So far as the documents annexed with the writ petition are concerned, we find from the documents annexed with the habeas corpus petition that these are some applications and affidavits dated 20.6.2008 addressed to Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bali, which was erased and corrected as Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pali. However, learned counsel for the petitioner was pointedly asked, and thereupon he submitted that the papers were prepared, and the petitioner went to the Court, but these papers were not actually presented before them, and the petitioner was orally directed to approach the High Court by way of Habeas Corpus Petition. Be that as it may, the fact situation that boils down is that the corpus is under a lawful detention under orders of the competent Court, and is in judicial custody in connection with FIR No.138/2008 being a theft case. The precise controversy now remaining is only, as to whether the corpus was taken away i.e. 24 days back before filing of the habeas corpus petition, or on 25.6.2008, as contended by the respondent. In our view, 4 that is a matter, which involved disputed questions of fact, and is not required to be decided in this habeas corpus petition. If the petitioner feels like, the petitioner has other appropriate remedies available to her for ventilating the grievances. Since the corpus is in judicial custody under lawful orders of the competent Court, the habeas corpus petition no more survives and is accordingly, dismissed. ( MANAK LALL MOHTA ),J. ( N P GUPTA ),J. /tarun/