1 2469.10.sxw IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.2469 OF 2010 Hiran Mohan Pujari ...Petitioner Versus State of Maharashtra & Ors. ...Respondents ...... Mr.Satyaprakash Sharma i/b Global Juris for Petitioner. Mr.A.S.Gadkari, A.P.P. for Respondent State. Mr.D.D.Kamble for Respondents 4 & 5. ...... CORAM:- A.M.KHANWILKAR AND P.D.KODE, JJ. DATED:- SEPTEMBER 29, 2010. P.C. 1. This is Habeas Corpus Petition praying for production of Rubina Rafique Khan, who, it is alleged is in custody of Respondents 4 and 5. The Respondents 4 and 5 are the parents of said Rubina. Pursuant to the notice issued by this Court, Respondents 4 and 5 have appeared in Court along with Rubina. Rubina was interviewed by us in open Court as well as in Chamber. 2. It is common ground that she was born on 24th November 1988. Thus, she was major on the date of incident. She has stated 2 2469.10.sxw before us that she is staying with her parents at her own free will and she has no intention to join the company of the Petitioner. Indeed, she has accepted the fact that she had gone to Karnataka along with the Petitioner and the photographs pertain to the event stated by the Petitioner. But she states that she was taken to Karnataka by the Petitioner deceitfully. It is her case that on the representation that she would be dropped at her residence, she took lift from the Petitioner as both were working at the same place and were known to each other, but on her way, she was drugged by the Petitioner. When she became conscious, she was already in the State of Karnataka. Thereafter, under force and threat, she was made to perform certain rituals. She was also forced to smile during the photo session. 3. We are not examining the correctness of the version given by the said Rubina before us. Neither we intend to analyse the case made out by the petitioner that he has entered into legal marriage with the said Rubina. Those are matters which will have to be addressed in appropriate proceedings. For the present, suffice it to 3 2469.10.sxw observe that the relief of Habeas Corpus for issuance of direction to the Respondents 4 and 5 to produce Rubina before the Court has been worked out. It is not a case where Rubina who is a major, wants to stay with the Petitioner. If that was her version, we would have considered issuing further direction. 4. In the circumstances, we dispose of this Petition, leaving all contentious issues between the parties open, to be considered on its own merits in appropriate proceedings as and when resorted to by the parties. 5. Petition disposed of on the above terms. (P.D.KODE, J.) (A.M.KHANWILKAR, J.)