Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Punjab and Haryana · body

2025 DAILYLAW 68448 (PNJ)

VARUN SANDHIR v. STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS

CRWP/5987/2025 · 2025-06-06

Anil Kshetarpal

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

CRWP-5987-2025 -1- 206 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRWP-5987-2025 Date of decision : 06.06.2025 Varun Sandhir ...Petitioner Vs. State of Punjab and others ...Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KSHETARPAL Present: Mr. Subhash Kumar, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Amit Kumar Goyal, Addl. A.G. Punjab. Mr. Kartik Walia, Advocate for respondents No. 6 and 7. *** ANIL KSHETARPAL , J. (Oral) 1. The petitioner herein is father of Tarush Sandhir who is yet to attain the age of 05 years. By filing a writ of Habeas Corpus, the petitioner prays for release of his son, who is in custody of the mother of the child. 2. On 03.06.2025, the following order was passed:- "Prayer in the present petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is for issuance of a writ in the nature of Habeas Corpus for appointing the warrant officer for release and produce the child/detenue, who is detained by the private respondents. Notice of motion. Mr. Adhiraj Singh, AAG, Punjab, accepts notice on behalf of the respondent-State and seeks time to file reply. Adjourned to 06.06.2025. Respondent No.5-Station House Officer, Police Station City Kharar, District Mohali, shall ensure the protection of life and liberty of minor child namely NEERAJ 2025.06.09 15:40 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRWP-5987-2025 -2- Tarush Sandhir and further ensure the presence of respondents No.6 and 7 along with the minor child in the Court on the date fixed." 3. In compliance with the order, respondent No.7 alongwith her child Tarush Sandhir is present in Court. This Court has interacted with respondent No.7. 4. Learned counsel representing the petitioner submits that he should be allowed to meet the child for two hours. 5. The scope of a writ of Habeas Corpus is limited. The child is in custody of her mother, who is a natural guardian. Hence, the custody cannot be said to be illegal. 6. Keeping in view the aforesaid facts, no ground is made out to issue a writ. 7. Hence, the petition is dismissed. (ANIL KSHETARPAL) 06.06.2025 JUDGE neeraj Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes No Whether Reportable : Yes No NEERAJ 2025.06.09 15:40 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document