Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:34340-DB ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P. (Cr) No. 441 of 2025 Neelam Devi, aged about 49 years, wife of Kamlesh Kumar Singh, resident of Housing Colony, Q. No. L-1G40, Daltonganj, Sahar, P.O. & P.S. Daltonganj, District Palamau, Jharkhand ... Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. The Director General of Police, Jharkhand, having its office at Police Headquarter, Dhurwa, P.O. & P.S. Dhurwa, District Ranchi, Jharkhand 3. The Superintendent of Police, Palamau, P.O. & P.S. Daltonganj, District Palamau, Jharkhand 4. The Deputy Commissioner, Palamau, P.O. & P.S. Daltonganj, District Palamau, Jharkhand 5. Officer-in-Charge, Daltonganj Town, P.O. & P.S. Daltonganj, District Palamau, Jharkhand 6. Md. Saif Ali, son of Faizal Haque, resident of Daltonganj, Sahar, P.O. & P.S. Daltonganj, District Palamau, Jharkhand 7. Priya Kumari, daughter of Kamlesh Kumar Singh, resident of45A, CN Roy Road, P.O. & P.S. Tiljala, District Howrah-700039 and having permanent address at House No. 4/1, Badki Boriya Gram, Boriya Nagar Nigam, Daltonganj, P.O. & P.S. Daltonganj … Respondents --- CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA For the Petitioner : Mr. Awanish Shekhar, Advocate Ms. Monalisa Singh, Advocate For the State : Mr. Manoj Kumar, GA-III For the Respondent-6 : Mr. Rakesh Kumar Singh, Advocate For the Respondent-7 : Mr. Niranjan Kumar, Advocate --- Order No. 09 Dated 18th November, 2025 Heard the learned counsel for the respective sides. In this writ application, the petitioner has prayed for a direction upon the respondents particularly the respondent No. 5 to immediately produce the daughter of the petitioner, namely, Priya Kumar (respondent No. 7) who is said to have been abducted by the respondent No. 6 for the purposes of marriage. A First Information Report was instituted by the petitioner who happens to be the mother of the respondent No. 7 on 28.03.2025 being Page|1 Daltonganj Sahar P.S. Case No. 145of 2025 alleging therein that on 15.03.2025 when she woke up in the early morning, she could not find the respondent No. 7 and despite making a frantic search the respondent No. 7 could not be located. It has also been alleged that previously the respondent No. 7 used to converse with the respondent No. 6 and therefore an apprehension was made that on account of conspiracy hatched by the respondent No. 6 and others, the respondent No. 7 has been abducted by them. Submission has been advanced by Mr. Awanish Shekhar, learned counsel for the petitioner that the respondent No. 6 has solemnized marriage with the respondent No. 7 and has also converted her religion. It has been submitted that the petitioner is the mother of the respondent No. 7 and despite making all efforts, she could not meet her daughter and therefore the present Writ of Habeas Corpus has been filed to produce the respondent No. 7. Mr. Rakesh Kumar Singh, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 6 has stated that the respondent No. 6 in the counter affidavit has denied the allegations made of abducting the respondent No. 7 and in fact the respondent No. 6 is carrying on his business at Daltonganj and has no concern with the respondent No. 7. Mr. Niranjan Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 7 has submitted that the respondent No. 7 is aged more than 25 years and she is staying at Kolkata on her own choice and therefore the present writ application is liable to be dismissed. Originally the writ application was filed in which the respondent No. 7 was not arrayed as a party, but subsequently an intervention application was preferred on behalf of the intervener respondent No. 7 through I.A. No. 14158 of 2025 which was allowed vide order dated 15.10.2025 consequent to which the respondent No. 7 was made a party in the writ application. Today, the petitioner has appeared in person and the respondent No. 7 has appeared online and on being asked as to why she has not appeared in person, she has expressed her apprehension that if she appears in person Page|2 there is a threat to her as some mishappening may occur to her. She has categorically stated that she is residing in Kolkata and she is not inclined to have any connection with the petitioner. She has further stated that she has no connection with the respondent No. 6 and the allegations which have been made in the present writ application are false and frivolous. The petitioner who is also physically present has expressed her dissatisfaction with the act of the respondent No. 7 and has made a fervent plea to the Court to return back the respondent No. 7 to her. The affidavits filed by the respondent No. 6 and 7 categorically reveal that they are leading their own lives and so far as the respondent No. 7 is concerned, she apart from her affidavit has stated while appearing online that she is leading her life at Kolkata and is not inclined to return back to her parents’ place on account of the threat to her life. The respondent No. 7 is admittedly an adult, aged more than 25 years and in the facts and circumstances of the case, especially in view of the affidavits filed by the respondent No. 6 as well as what has been stated by the respondent No. 7 while appearing online, we are not inclined to allow the prayer made by the writ petitioner in this writ petition and consequently this writ application stands dismissed. Pending I.A., if any, stands closed. (RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY, J.) (PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, J.) 18.11.2025 MK Page|3