p. 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK WPCRL No.157 of 2024 Rinarani Lenka …. Petitioner Mr. P. Panda, Advocate -Versus- State of Odisha and others …. Opposite Parties Mrs. Suman Pattanayak, Addl. Govt. Advocate CORAM: HON’ BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE AND HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MURAHARI SRI RAMAN Order No. ORDER 23.04.2025 08. 1. After the persistent efforts and the directions/orders passed by this Court in the instant writ petition in the nature of habeas corpus, the girl has been rescued on 21st April, 2025 and was placed before the Child Welfare Committee (CWC) of Bhadrak district. 2. The report submitted today further reveals that the statement of the victim girl has been recorded under Section 183 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) and the case has also been registered. 3. The girl being the Child in Need of Care and Protection (CNCP) after the rescue is placed in a home on the order of the CWC. The CWC interacted with the girl who refused to be integrated with her parents and showed her intention to remain with the accused p. 2 boy with whom she has married. The parents were permitted to interact with the girl at the home and were also permitted to accompany the girl for the medical examination. However, the girl refused to undergo the medical examination. It is not a case that the parents have not seen the girl after she is rescued by the police authorities. 4. Mr. Panda, learned counsel for the petitioner insists for sending of the girl to their house as they feel that they would take care of her in a better way. The moment the girl below the age of 18 years is produced before the CWC and it is evident from the past incident that she needs care and protection, if the CWC decided to keep her in a safe home as twice she was allegedly abducted or kidnapped by the accused boy, it is not proper for the writ Court to intervene in this regard. 5. Various procedures are to be followed under the Juvenile Justice system and, therefore, it should be left to the wisdom of the authorities to take a conscious decision in this regard. Apart from the same, the scope of the writ in the nature of habeas corpus is limited i.e., the production of the person before the Court and once the girl has been rescued and in the custody of the statutory authorities, we do not feel that her personal presence before the Court in the instant p. 3 writ petition would subserve justice. However, we cannot absolve our responsibility in making certain observations taking into account the incidents happened with the child that previously she was rescued by the police authorities and was found untraceable a day before the day fixed for recording her evidence in an earlier instituted case. 6. The police shall ensure her presence as a witness before the jurisdictional Court where she is shown as a witness therein and shall see that all safety measures are taken. 7. The CWC is free to take a decision on the interaction of the parents with the said girl keeping in mind the wish and the welfare of the said minor girl. The police administration shall also ensure any statement required to be recorded of the said girl with regard to the incident as permissible in law. 8. The writ petition is, thus, disposed of. (Harish Tandon) Chief Justice (M.S. Raman) Judge S. Behera S.K. Behera Designation: Junior Stenographer