HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Habeas Corpus Petition No. 94/2025 Gurbachan Singh S/o Shri Milap Singh, Aged About 47 Years, R/o 34, Uit Colony, Bhagwanganj, Ajmer ----Petitioner Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary, Secretariat, Jaipur. 2. Additional Director Of Police, Anti Human Trafficking Unit, Rajasthan, Jaipur. 3. Superintendent Of Police, Ajmer. 4. Sho, Police Station Ramganj, District Ajmer 5. Smt. Santosh Kaur W/o Late Charan Singh, R/o 571/25, Behind Sant Kanwar Ram School, Labana Basti, Janta Colony, Pahadganj, Ajmer 6. Anil Singh S/o Late Charan Singh, R/o 571/25, Behind Sant Kanwar Ram School, Labana Basti, Janta Colony, Pahadganj, Ajmer 7. Govind Singh S/o Late Charan Singh, R/o 571/25, Behind Sant Kanwar Ram School, Labana Basti, Janta Colony, Pahadganj, Ajmer ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Devanshu Sharma, Adv. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Rajesh Choudhary, GA-cum-AAG Mr. Aman Kumar, AAAG Mr. Gaurav Gupta, Asst. G. A. Ms. Neha Goyal, Adv. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BHUWAN GOYAL Order 27/03/2025 1. This Habeas Corpus Petition has been preferred by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is the husband of corpus “S” and his in-laws (respondent Nos. 5 to 7) took the corpus “S” with them. Corpus “S” is mentally ill. In (2 of 2) [HC-94/2025] this regard, he has produced the medical documents of the corpus “S”. He further submits that in-laws of the petitioner are not taking care of the corpus “S”. So, in the interest of justice, police authorities be directed to produce the corpus “S” before this Court and her custody be handed over to the petitioner. 3. Learned GA-cum-AAG has opposed the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner and submitted that as per the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner, corpus “S” is residing with respondent Nos. 5 to 7, who are mother and brothers of corpus “S”. Corpus “S” has not been illegally detained by them. He further submits that the petitioner can avail appropriate remedy before the appropriate forum, in accordance with Law. Therefore, the present habeas corpus petition is not maintainable. So, the present habeas corpus petition filed by the petitioner be dismissed. 4. We have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned GA-cum-AAG. 5. It is an admitted position that corpus “S” is legally wedded wife of the petitioner and she is residing with her mother and brothers. So, it can’t be said that respondent Nos.5 to 7 have illegally detained the corpus. However, since the petitioner has an alternate legal remedy for redressal of his grievance, the present Habeas Corpus petition filed by the petitioner deserves to be dismissed, which stands dismissed accordingly. (BHUWAN GOYAL),J (NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA),J Tahir/Gourav/28