‘Abducted’ on way to vote, man traced within hours after Rajasthan High Court order

A habeas corpus plea requires a person under arrest or in detention to be brought before a judge so the court can decide if the detention is legal.

The court directed the superintendent of police (SP), Sri Ganganagar, to ensure that Kumar was traced “well in time, latest by 4:00 PM today” and that he was afforded an opportunity to cast his vote in the ongoing election for chairman of the Sri Vijaynagar Municipal Board in Sri Ganganagar district.

The case arose after Kumar’s wife alleged that unknown persons had opened fire at three voters and forcibly took them away while they were travelling near Bajuwala, around 10 km from Sri Vijaynagar. The order recorded these as submissions made on behalf of the petitioner and did not conclude that the alleged firing or abduction had been established.

Justices Nupur Bhati and Baljinder S Sandhu questioned the SP about the delay in FIR registration.

‘Abducted on way to vote’

According to the petitioner’s case, Kumar was travelling with other candidates of the same political party on the morning of September 21 when the alleged incident took place near Bajuwala.

His wife told the court that he remained untraceable and that his mobile phone was switched off. She was unable to establish contact with him. The petitioner’s counsel further submitted that a complaint had been lodged with the concerned police station but that the police had initially failed to register an FIR.

The timing of the alleged disappearance was critical because voting for the post of chairman of the Sri Vijaynagar Municipal Board was already underway. According to the submissions recorded in the order, polling had originally been scheduled from 10 am to 2 pm, but the returning officer extended the deadline until 5 pm following the alleged abduction of Kumar.

That extension left only a few hours for the missing voter to be traced if he was to participate in the election.

Given the urgency, the bench directed the additional advocate general to ensure the presence of the SP through video conference. The court reassembled at 2 pm, when the SP joined the proceedings. The bench questioned him about the delay in registration of the FIR.

The senior police officer told the court that the complaint was later acted upon and an FIR was registered. He also informed the bench that two other men who had allegedly been travelling with Kumar and had been abducted with him – Mangatram and Pyarelal – had been traced by the police and had already cast their votes.

The SP assured the court that effective steps were being taken to trace Kumar and that he would be located shortly. The court then turned that assurance into a specific time-bound direction.

4 pm deadline

Considering that the voting deadline had been extended only until 5 pm, the bench directed the SP to ensure that Kumar was traced “latest by 4 pm” that day. The court also specifically ordered that Kumar be afforded an opportunity to cast his vote in the said election.

The additional advocate general was also directed to place a compliance report on record, and the matter was listed for the following day.

When the matter came up the next day, the high court was informed that Kumar was traced and had exercised his franchise within the deadline. The bench then disposed of the habeas corpus petition.

The disposal of the habeas corpus petition did not by itself settle all issues surrounding the municipal chairperson election. The order did not identify any alleged abductors, determine who was responsible for the reported firing or make a final finding that Kumar had been abducted. Those matters remain distinct from the court’s time-bound direction to trace him.