Alsia Pardhi vs State Of M.P.& Ors

3) Brief facts:

(d) When all the efforts in tracing the girl failed, the appellant, on 24.02.2011, approached the High Court by filing a writ of habeas corpus praying that Rajnandani be directed to be produced before the Court and the Superintendent of Police – Respondent No. 2 herein be directed to register an FIR against the forest officials involved in kidnapping and illegal detention of the minor girl as well as against those who have been instrumental in shielding and protecting the accused.

(g) On 10.08.2011, i.e., on the next date of hearing, the Deputy Advocate General for the State filed a report in the matter and submitted that as per the report of the Police, Rajnandani was not detained by the Forest Officials. The High Court, after perusing the record and considering the report to be doubtful, granted further opportunity to the police to produce corpus of Rajnandani and also directed that in case Respondent No.2 fails to produce her on the next date of hearing, it would be compelled to direct the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) to take up the investigation into its hands. On 27.08.2011, Respondent No. 2 again submitted a progress report. The High Court, being not satisfied with the report, directed the Superintendent of Police, Betul to appear in person on the next date of hearing. On 12.09.2011, when the Superintendent of Police, Betul explained the circumstances in which the investigation was being conducted, the High Court observed that no proper investigation had been done by the police with the forest officials against whom the allegations had been made and gave one more chance to the Respondent No. 2 to produce Rajnandani before the Court. On 17.10.2011, Respondent No. 2 again filed a progress report before the Court in which it was stated that Rajnandani had tried to contact her father thrice from different mobile numbers but still the police officials were not able to trace her.

(h) On 07.04.2012, Respondent No.2 filed an affidavit accepting the statements of forest officials and did not give any weightage to the statement of the eye-witness Kusum. It was also stated that the police accepted the version of the forest officials verbatim.

12) On behalf of the State, it is claimed that on 10.02.2011, the forest officials got a tip off that some of the members of the Pardhi community are illegally indulging in the sale of prohibited species of animals in the fish market at Betul. When the forest officials reached the spot, they found 2-3 women selling the prohibited species, consequently, they were arrested and the prohibited species were seized. However, before taking any action by the forest officers, about 100-150 members of the Pardhi community had suddenly assembled and resisted their detention and managed to free all of them except one Sangeeta Pardhi who was able to slip away after causing injury to the lady Forest Guard Sunanda Tekam. The said claim of the Forest officials has strongly been disputed by the appellant and their community people.

After resistance by Pardhi community, they released Kusum but Forest Officials succeeded in forcibly kidnapping Rajnandani. On our reaching Range Office and in spite of repeatedly asking, the officials of Forest Department are not ready to tell anything. The parents of victim have been very upset and shocked after strenuous efforts to locate their daughter. We have come to know that the girl is in the custody of Forest Department.

You are, therefore, requested that the case of kidnapping may be registered against officials of Forest Department and Rajnandani may be got freed.

16) After filing of the Writ Petition before the High Court, pursuant to the request made, the High Court directed the petitioner therein to produce Kusum before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Betul on 02.05.2011 for recording of her statement. Her statement before the Magistrate is also relevant, which reads as under:

24) With the above observations, the appeal is allowed.

………….………………………CJI.

DECEMBER 6, 2013.