Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:133907-DB In Chamber Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 684 of 2025 Appellant :- Smt. Munni Devi and another Respondent :- State of U.P. and 4 others Counsel for Appellant :- Saurabh Kumar Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C., Jagdish Pathak (S.C.) Hon'ble Arun Bhansali,Chief Justice Hon'ble Kshitij Shailendra,J. 1. This special appeal is directed against order dated 24.06.2025, passed by learned Single Judge in Habeas Corpus Writ Petition No. 5271 of 2025, whereby the petition filed by the appellants has been dismissed. 2. The petition was filed with the allegations that the petitioner No. 1 is Aunty (Bua) of petitioner No. 2, who was living with her, however, she had been forcibly taken away by respondent Nos. 4 and 5 and therefore, the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 be directed to produce her before the Court and her custody be handed over to the petitioner No. 2. 3. Indications have been made that the corpus is about 70 years of age and is physically not well and respondent Nos. 4 and 5, who are in the family of her husband, only with a view to possess her properties, have taken her away and therefore, the respondents be directed to produce the corpus before the Court. 4. Learned Single Judge, on account of the instructions produced by the Government Counsel, indicating that the petitioner No. 1 was staying with respondents as per her own free will and the allegations to the contrary were incorrect, rejected the petition. Feeling aggrieved, the present appeal has been filed. 5. When the appeal came up before the Court on 01.08.2025, a Coordinate Bench of this Court, on finding that the fact about the will of the corpus should have been verified, ordered the appellant No. 2 to deposit a sum of Rs. 25,000/- in the name of appellant No. 1 by means of the demand draft to prove the bonafides and the respondents were directed to ensure production of the appellant No. 1 before the Court on 07.08.2025. 6. Today, the demand draft to the tune of Rs. 25,000/- has been produced by the appellant/petitioner before the Court and the corpus has also been produced from District - Auraiya. 7. We have extensively conferred with the corpus in Chambers, wherein she indicated that she was living with Ramender Singh and Renu, who are son and daughter in law of late Bachaan Singh, brother of late husband of the corpus, and that she is not in wrongful confinement, as alleged. On her making said statement before the Court, the appellant/petitioner No. 2 along with her counsel also joined in the Chambers and in their presence, the appellant No. 1 reiterated the fact that she was living with Ramender Singh and Renu as per her own free will and was not in wrongful confinement, as alleged. 8. In view of the above fact situation, we do not find any case for interference in the present appeal, the appeal is, therefore, dismissed. 9. The demand draft, produced by the appellant/petitioner, is handed over to the appellant No. 1 for being deposited in her bank account, under receipt. The appellant No. 1 has put her thumb impression as a token of receipt of the said demand draft. 10. The Police Authorities are directed to ensure that the corpus- appellant No. 1 reaches back to her place of residence, safely. Order Date :- 7.8.2025 Mukesh Pal (Kshitij Shailendra, J) (Arun Bhansali, CJ) Digitally signed by :- MUKESH PAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad