We have perused the papers as well as the said statements.
The statement reveals that Pratap was forcibly kept at the said
rehabilitation centre at the behest of his wife. Pratap had stated
that for his addiction for gutka he was kept in the rehabilitation
centre. {Para 6}
11. Thus considering the aforesaid, it is clear that Pratap was
unnecessarily detained at the said rehabilitation centre at the
behest of his wife.
12. We are not shown any medical papers of Pratap to show
that he was required to be admitted to the rehabilitation centre.
Hence, in view of the aforesaid, we permit Pratap to go alongwith the petitioner.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION (ST) NO. 13818 OF 2023
Jayendra Narandas Bhatia Vs State of Maharashtra
CORAM : REVATI MOHITE DERE &
GAURI GODSE, JJ.
DATE : 18th AUGUST 2023
1. This petition is filed for seeking a writ of habeas corpus
directing the respondent to produce the petitioner’s cousin
brother Pratap Jivani .
2. It is the case of the petitioner that he is the cousin of Pratap
Jivani who was missing. Brother of Pratap Jivani by email dated
16th July 2023 had requested the petitioner to find out about
Pratap as he required Hernia surgery on urgent basis. Brother of
Pratap is residing in Dubai and hence he had requested the
petitioner to take appropriate steps.
3. It is further the case of the petitioner that in view of
matrimonial disputes between Pratap and his wife, Pratap’s wife
had admitted him for psychiatric treatment in Amulya Prem
Foundation at Bhiwandi (“Rehabilitation Centre”) .
4. The petitioner has stated that for no reason Pratap was
admitted in the said rehabilitation centre and was illegally
detained there and no one was allowed to meet him. Hence the
present petition was filed.
5. By order dated 4th August 2023, we had directed to send a
responsible officer to the said rehabilitation centre for recording
statement of Pratap. Today, Pratap is produced before us in
Chamber. The concerned representatives of the said rehabilitation
are also present before us. Statement of Pratap recorded by the
Sub-Inspector, Bhiwandi Police Station is placed before us.
Statement of one Francis John Fernandes, representative of the
rehabilitation centre is also placed before us.
6. We have perused the papers as well as the said statements.
The statement reveals that Pratap was forcibly kept at the said
rehabilitation centre at the behest of his wife. Pratap had stated
that for his addiction for gutka he was kept in the rehabilitation
centre.
7. Francis Fernandes in his statement has stated that Pratap
was kept in the rehabilitation centre as instructed by his wife. He
has stated that Pratap does not require any operation for hernia
and that he was admitted to the rehabilitation for addiction
towards gutka. Francis Fernandes has further stated that without
permission of the wife of Pratap the rehabilitation centre cannot
allow anybody to meet Pratap.
8. We interacted with Pratap as well as the petitioner in
Chamber. Pratap informed us that he was addicted to gutka,
however he has not consumed gutka after he was kept at the
rehabilitation centre. He also informed us that he did not wish to
stay at the rehabilitation centre and he wants to go alongwith the
petitioner. He stated that in view of the dispute with his wife, she
had kept him at the rehabilitation centre. The petitioner informed
us that he is ready to take entire responsibility of Pratap and he
would take him alongwith him to his house.
9. Franics Fernandes informed us that as per instructions of
the wife of Pratap they were not allowing anybody to meet
Pratap. He further informed us that Pratap’s wife was paying
them for keeping him at the rehabilitation centre.
10. One Manisha Mohan Patil, Trustee of the said rehabilitation
centre was also present before us. Francis Fernandes as well as
Manisha Patil informed us that only on the instructions of wife of
Pratap they were not allowing anybody to meet Pratap.
11. Thus considering the aforesaid, it is clear that Pratap was
unnecessarily detained at the said rehabilitation centre at the
behest of his wife.
12. We are not shown any medical papers of Pratap to show
that he was required to be admitted to the rehabilitation centre.
Hence, in view of the aforesaid, we permit Pratap to go alongwith
the petitioner. The aforesaid representatives of the rehabilitation
centre assured us that henceforth they will not detain any person
in such manner without following due process of law. Statement
accepted.
13. In view of the aforesaid, no further directions are necessary.
14. Writ Petition is disposed of in the above terms.
GAURI GODSE, J. REVATI MOHITE DERE, J.
No comments:
Post a Comment