HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Habeas Corpus Petition No. 148/2026 Dholaram Yadav S/o Shri Moolchand Yadav, Aged About 29 Years, R/o Dhani Shyoji Wali (Bawadi) Village Ladakabas, Tehsil Kotputai District Kotputli-Behror ----Petitioner Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary, Home Department, Govt. Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur 2. Additional Director Of Police, Anti Human Trafficking Unit, Rajasthan, Jaipur 3. Superintendent Of Police, District Kotputli-Behror 4. Sho, Police Station Pragpura, District Kotputli-Behror 5. Sudama Sain S/o Bhagwan Sahai Sain, R/o Near Tejaji Ka Mandir, Akeda Dungar, Jaipur 6. Krishan Sain S/o Bhagwan Sahai Sain, R/o Near Tejaji Ka Mandir, Akeda Dungar, Jaipur 7. Narad Sain S/o Bhagwan Sahai Sain, R/o Near Tejaji Ka Mandir, Akeda Dungar, Jaipur ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : None For Respondent(s) : Mr. Rajesh Choudhary, GA-cum-AAG with Mr. Aman Agarwal & Ms. Neha Goyal Mr. Naresh Kumar Gupta, PP HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE INDERJEET SINGH HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BHUWAN GOYAL Order 02/05/2026 This habeas corpus petition has been filed by the petitioner- husband. (2 of 3) [HC-148/2026] The petitioner, present in person, submits that the corpus, who is wife of the petitioner, has been illegally detained by her parents. The petitioner relies upon the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Srikant Vs. District Magistrate, Bijapur: (2007) 49 AIC 721. Learned GA-cum-AAG opposes the submissions and submits that the petitioner had earlier filed D.B. Habeas Corpus Petition No. 234/2024, in which, after recording the statement of the corpus on 18.07.2024, this Court passed the following order:- “Today the corpus has been produced before us by respondent no.5-Sudama Sain (father of the corpus). Date of birth of the corpus is 01.06.2006. Therefore, the corpus is above eighteen years of age. This fact has been confirmed by counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Advocate- cum-Additional Advocate General as well. We have interacted with the corpus. She has firmly stated before us that she does not want to go and live with the petitioner. She has further stated that she wants to go with her father-respondent no.5 namely Sudama Sain. Considering the statement made by the corpus and the fact that she is above eighteen years of age, we permit the corpus to go with her father-respondent no.5 namely Sudama Sain. The concerned SHO is directed that no harm should be caused by anyone to the corpus while going with her father- respondent no.5 namely Sudama Sain. Hence, this habeas corpus petition stands disposed of.” Heard. Considered. The corpus is a major lady and has given a statement before this Court on 18.07.2024 that she does not want to go and live with the petitioner, and further stated that she wants to go with her father-respondent no.5 namely Sudama Sain. (3 of 3) [HC-148/2026] In view of the above and in our considered opinion, since the corpus is not in illegal detention as per statement given by her in earlier habeas corpus petition, no case is made out for interference. Hence, the habeas corpus petition is dismissed (BHUWAN GOYAL),J (INDERJEET SINGH),J Anu /21