HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR W. P. (Habeas Corpus) No.1043 of 2011 Present: Shri Pankaj Shrivastava, counsel for the petitioner. Shri U.N.S. Deo, Govt. Advocate for the State/respondents No,1 to 3. Shri V.C. Ottalwar, counsel for respondents No.4 and 5. Division Bench: Hon. Shri Dhirendra Mishra & Hon. Shri R.N. Chandrakar, JJ. ORAL ORDER (21—4—201 1) 1. in compliance of the orders dated 315‘ March, 2011, 7-4-2011 and 18-4— 2011, nnaHy respondent No.6 was produced on 19““ April, 2011 before this .4 ... PETlTlONER: Ku. Neha Singhania, D/o Shri’ Mahesh Singhania, aged about 23 years, R/o Samta Colony, Near Shyam Mandir, Raipur, District Raipur. Chhattisgarh Versus RESPONDENTS: 1. State of Chhattisgarh, through Secretary Department of Home, DKS Bhawan, Mantralaya, Raipur, (CG) Superintendent of Police, Raipur, District Raipur (CG) 3. Superintendent of Police, Gondia, District Gondia, Maharashtra 4. Shri Ramendra Jaiswal (Father), S/o Shri Kasturchand Jaiswal, aged about 50 years, R/o 124, Gurunank Ward, Gondia, District Gondia, Maharashtra 5. Smt. Poonam Jaiswal, W/o Shri Ramendra Jaiswat (Mother) aged about 45 years, R/o 124, Gurunank Ward, Gondia, District Gondia Maharashtra 6. Ku. Vijayshree Jaiswal (Detainee), D/o Shri Ramendra Jaiswal,taged about 23 years, R/o 124, Gurunank Ward, Gondia, District Gondia, Maharashtra @ Coutt by respondent No.3 along with two police constables from the Maharashtra Police. On that date, on the request of learned counsel for respondents No.4 and 5, the matter was posted for today as before. . Today, the petitioner, respondents No.4 & 5 and respondent No.6 along with their respective counsel are present in person. . Statement of respondent No.6 was recorded on oath in which she expressed that she had been detained by her parents against her wishes in her home at Gondia since 6‘“ February, 2011 and she is not willing to return back to" her parents and wants to reside with her friend Le. the petitioner namely, Ku. Neha Singhania at Raipur for the‘present. She also’ expressed her apprehension that her parents may interfere with her tiberty once she goes out of the Court whereas, respondents No.4 & 5 through their counsel submitted that they are only interested in the welfare of respondent No.6 and she is free to reside at place of her choice and there is no question of any interference in her affairs by them. . After hearing the parties and their respective counsel in the Chamber, we set respondent No.6 free and she is at liberty to reside at the place of her choice. However, looking to her apprehension, we order that the State shall provide her protection till she reaches to the destination of her choice. 5. With these observations, the writ petition is disposed of. Sdl- Dhirendra Mishra Sd/— Judge R.N. Chandrakar Judge Barve