2026:JHHC:17825-DB 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P. (Cr.) (HB) (DB) No.343 of 2026 ----- Suman Mahli, aged about 23 years son of Anand Mahli, resident of village-Bargaon Mahli Toli, P.O. and P.S. Sisai, District-Gumla … … …Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand, 2. Senior Superintendent of Police, Ranchi, P.O. GPO, P.S. Kotwali, District-Ranchi, 3. Superintendent of Police (Rural), Ranchi, P.O. GPO, P.S. Kotwali, District-Ranchi, 4. Deputy Superintendent of Police (Rural), Ranchi, P.O. GPO, P.S. Kotwali, District-Ranchi, 5. Officer-in-Charge Lapung Police Station, P.O. and P.S. Lapung, District-Ranchi, 6. Shivnarayan Singh son of Late Kamal Singh, resident of village- Barkakura Baartoli, Lapung, P.O. and P.S. Lapung, District- Ranchi. … … … Respondents --------- CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY PRASAD ---------- For the Petitioner : Mr. Arun Kumar, Advocate For the State : Mr. Sahbaj Akhtar, A.C. to A.A.G-III ---------- Order No.02 / Dated 18th June, 2026 Oral Order 1. This writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking, therein, for issuance of writ in the nature of habeas corpus for direction upon the respondents particularly upon the Respondent No. 2 to produce the detained person namely Bindeshwari Kumari, aged about 23 years, alleged to have illegally been confined by the Respondent No. 6, namely, Shivnarayan Singh in his house and torture her mentally and physically without any rhyme and reason. 2. The brief facts of the case as per the pleadings made in the writ petition which are required to be enumerated, read as under:- (i) It is stated that the petitioner aged about 23 years and running a grocery shop and he got love marriage on 14/1/2026 with the 2026:JHHC:17825-DB 2 daughter of the respondent no.6 namely Bindeshwari Kumari aged about 23 years. The petitioner solemnized the marriage with the daughter of the respondent no.6 without his consent or his family member. Hence the respondent no.6 and his family members are against the said marriage. After solemnization of marriage the daughter of the respondent no.6 (Corpus) started living with her husband/petitioner peacefully as husband and wife and the respondent no.6 or his family member did not raised objection. (ii) It has further been stated that all of a sudden on 20/4/2026 the mother of the wife of the petitioner come to house of petitioner and taken his wife Bindeshwari Kumari stating that she is not well and her treatment is going on and no one to look after in her family. But thereafter respondent no.6 and his wife started torturing upon the wife of the petitioner. (iii) It has been alleged that the wife of the petitioner made Whatsapp chatting with the petitioner and told that her parent "Humko Mar Kar Fek Dega". (iv) It has further been alleged that the petitioner made complaint to the Lapung police as well as Sisai police also but they have not taken any action stating there is family dispute. The petitioner made a representation dated 30/5/2026 to the respondent no.2 and 3 but they have also not taken action against the respondent no.6 or his family member nor get release the wife of the petitioner from their clutch. (v) Hence this criminal writ. Submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner: 2026:JHHC:17825-DB 3 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has urged that the marriage between the petitioner and the daughter of Respondent No. 6 was duly solemnized, which is evidenced by the photographs appended as Annexure-1. To further substantiate the subsistence of marital relations, extracts of WhatsApp chats have been filed as Annexure-2, demonstrating that the parties were in regular communication. 4. Referring the aforesaid factual aspect it has been submitted that in the present writ petition is that, subsequent to the solemnization of marriage, the corpus—namely, the daughter of Respondent No. 6—has been subjected to illegal detention, thereby depriving her of her liberty. It is on this premise that the petitioner has invoked the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 5. It has been submitted that in view of the facts and circumstances of the case as stated above, the petitioner and daughter of the respondent no.6 namely Bindeshwari Kumari are legally married husband and wife and the respondent no.6 or his family member has no right to confine the wife of the petitioner illegally without her consent. Submission of the learned counsel for the respondents/state: 6. Learned counsel representing the State of Jharkhand has submitted that the element of marriage between the petitioner and corpus has not been fully substantiated in absence of the cogent evidence like valid certificate of marriage. 7. It has been submitted that merely on the basis of the photographs, the element of marriage has been tried to be substantiated by the writ petitioner and based upon that, the present writ petition, in the nature of habeas corpus, has been filed. 2026:JHHC:17825-DB 4 8. The learned counsel for respondents/state has placed his reliance upon the letter (ज्ञापाांक) 636 of 2026 which is the information furnished to the Senior Superintendent of the police by the Officer-in-charge of Lapung Police Station, Ranchi in response to the letter (ज्ञापाांक) 1433 dated 05.06.2026 issued for inspection of the representation submitted by the petitioner before Senior Superintendent of the police. By referring the aforesaid the learned counsel has submitted that aforesaid letter (ज्ञापाांक) 636 of 2026 may be taken on record wherein it has been mentioned that the Corpus has not recognized the validity of alleged marriage with the petitioner and infact she has complained that the Suman Mahali/writ petitioner continues to harass her and is coercing her to live with him. 9. On the basis of the aforesaid the learned State counsel has contended that the petitioner has failed to substantiate the alleged marriage beyond reasonable doubt. It has been urged that the mere production of photographs and WhatsApp chats cannot, in the absence of cogent proof, establish the solemnization of marriage in the eye of law. Consequently, the allegation that Respondent No. 6 has illegally confined the corpus does not merit acceptance. The prayer made in the writ petition, therefore, is not fit to be granted. Analysis 10. Heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the pleadings made in the writ petition. 11. The letter (ज्ञापाांक 636 of 2026), being the information furnished to the Senior Superintendent of Police by the Officer-in-Charge of Lapung Police Station, Ranchi, in response to letter (ज्ञापाांक 1433 dated 05.06.2026) issued 2026:JHHC:17825-DB 5 for inspection of the representation submitted by the petitioner before the Senior Superintendent of Police, is directed to be treated as part of the record. 12. The instant writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of writ in habeas corpus. 13. It has been alleged that the writ petitioner got love marriage on 14/1/2026 with the daughter of the respondent no.6 namely Bindeshwari Kumari who is major and 23 years of age. It has been alleged that the petitioner solemnized the marriage with the daughter of the respondent no.6 without his consent or his family member. Hence the respondent no.6 and his family members are against the said marriage. 14. It has been alleged that on 20/4/2026 the wife of the respondent no.6 and mother of the corpus come to house of petitioner and taken his wife Bindeshwari Kumari(corpus) by stating that she is not well and her treatment is going on and no one to look after in her family. But thereafter respondent no.6 and his wife started torturing upon the wife of the petitioner. 15. Hence, the present writ petition has been instituted seeking issuance of a writ of Habeas Corpus against Respondent No. 6, who is the father of the corpus. The petitioner asserts that the corpus, being illegally detained, is Thus, on the basis of the aforesaid factual matrix and the rival submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties, the singular issue which arises for consideration before this Court is: “Whether, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, it is a fit matter for issuance of a writ of Habeas Corpus against Respondent No. 6, directing production of the corpus before this Court” 2026:JHHC:17825-DB 6 16. Before delving into the merits of the issue framed, this Court considers it appropriate to recapitulate the underlying principle governing the exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in matters of Habeas Corpus. The writ of Habeas Corpus is a prerogative remedy designed to secure the liberty of a person who is alleged to be unlawfully detained. It is issued to safeguard the fundamental right to life and personal liberty enshrined under Article 21, and its scope extends to directing production of the corpus before the Court so that the legality of the detention may be judicially examined. 17. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of State v. H. Nilofer Nisha, (2020) 14 SCC 161 has been pleased to hold that a writ of habeas corpus is available as a remedy in all cases where a person is deprived of his/her personal liberty. It is processual writ to secure liberty of the citizen from unlawful or unjustified detention whether a person is detained by the State or is in private detention. 18. In Halsbury's Laws of England, a writ of habeas corpus is described as “a remedy available to the lowliest subject against the most powerful” [Halsbury's Laws of England (4th Edn.), Vol. 11, para 1454, p. 769.] . It is a writ of such a sovereign and transcendent authority that no privilege of person or place can stand against it [V.G. Ramachandran's Law of Writs, revised by Justice C.K. Thakker & M.C. Thakker, Eastern Book Company, p. 1036, 6th Edn. (2006).] . 19. In the case of Mohd. Ikram Hussain v. State of U.P., 1963 SCC OnLine SC 17 the Hon’ble Court has observed that Exigence of the writ at the instance of a husband is very rare in English Law, and in India the writ of habeas corpus is probably never used by a husband to regain his wife and there 2026:JHHC:17825-DB 7 is the remedy of a Civil suit for restitution of conjugal rights. For ready reference the relevant paragraph of the aforesaid judgment is being quoted as under: “13. Exigence of the writ at the instance of a husband is very rare in English Law, and in India the writ of habeas corpus is probably never used by a husband to regain his wife and the alternative remedy under Section 100 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is always used. Then there is the remedy of a Civil suit for restitution of conjugal rights. Husbands take recourse to the latter when the detention does not amount to an offence and to the former if it does. In both these remedies all the issues of fact can be tried and the writ of habeas corpus is probably not demanded in similar cases if issues of fact have first to be established. This is because the writ of habeas corpus is festinum remedium and the power can only be exercised in a clear case. It is of course singularly inappropriate in cases where the petitioner is himself charged with a criminal offence in respect of the very person for whose custody he demands the writ.” 20. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the aforesaid case Mohd. Ikram Hussain v. State of U.P., has further observed that the writ of habeas corpus issues not only for release from detention by the State but also for release from private detention and a remedy of writ of habeas corpus is available to the husband for regaining the custody of his wife if she is wrongfully detained by anyone from him without her consent. 21. In the case of Nilofer (supra) the Hon’ble Apex Court has observed that over the course of judicial evolution, the scope of the writ of Habeas Corpus under Article 226 has been considerably expanded. It is now frequently invoked in situations where one spouse alleges that the other has been illegally detained by parental authority, and it is also commonly resorted to in matters concerning custody of minor children.However, despite such expansion, certain inherent limitations remain. The most fundamental of these is that, before issuing a writ of Habeas Corpus, the Court must be satisfied that the 2026:JHHC:17825-DB 8 detenu is under unauthorized confinement and unless the detention is shown to be prima facie unlawful, the extraordinary remedy of Habeas Corpus cannot be granted. 22. In a judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Shafin Jahan v. Asokan K.M. (2018) 16 SCC 368, after stating the law pertaining to writ of habeas corpus, this writ has been considered as “a great constitutional privilege” or “the first security of civil liberty”. The Hon’ble Court made the following pertinent observations: “27. Thus, the pivotal purpose of the said writ is to see that no one is deprived of his/her liberty without sanction of law. It is the primary duty of the State to see that the said right is not sullied in any manner whatsoever and its sanctity is not affected by any kind of subterfuge. The role of the Court is to see that the detenue is produced before it, find out about his/her independent choice and see to it that the person is released from illegal restraint. The issue will be a different one when the detention is not illegal. What is seminal is to remember that the song of liberty is sung with sincerity and the choice of an individual is appositely respected and conferred its esteemed status as the Constitution guarantees. It is so as the expression of choice is a fundamental right under Articles 19 and 21 of the Constitution, if the said choice does not transgress any valid legal framework. Once that aspect is clear, the enquiry and determination have to come to an end.” 23. It is evident from the aforesaid pronouncements that, while issuing a writ of Habeas Corpus, the foremost considerations before the Court is the substantive foundation upon which the writ is sought, namely, whether the confinement complained of is prima facie illegal. Unless this element is satisfactorily established, the extraordinary remedy of Habeas Corpus cannot be invoked. 24. Herein, as per the factual aspect, the writ petitioner claims to be the husband of the corpus to whom she has solemnized marriage. 2026:JHHC:17825-DB 9 25. The only supportive document as appended as Annexure-1 i.e. the photographs of the temple alongwith one person has been shown therein. i.e. the only document to claim of marital status of the husband with the corpus, but only from the said photographs the factum of marriage cannot be established. Further there is also no other concrete evidence like marriage registration certificate under the Jharkhand Compulsory Registration of Marriage Act, 2017(Act 2017). 26. It is pertinent to observe that, had a marriage certificate been issued by the competent authority in terms of the mandate of the Act, 2017, the existence of the marital bond would have stood conclusively established, obviating the need for further proof. In such circumstances, the element of marriage would not have required judicial scrutiny. 27. However, in the present case, it is an admitted position that no marriage certificate or other statutory or cogent document has been produced. The writ petitioner seeks to substantiate the alleged marriage solely on the basis of photographs (annexure-1), which do not constitute public documents and whose veracity remains untested. The authenticity of such photographs can only be adjudicated upon by a competent civil court in appropriate proceedings. Consequently, the evidentiary foundation of the alleged marriage remains tenuous and cannot, by itself, sustain the extraordinary remedy of Habeas Corpus. 28. Further the learned counsel for respondents/state has placed his reliance upon the letter (ज्ञापाांक) 636 of 2026 which is the information furnished to the Senior Superintendent of the police by the Officer-in-charge of Lapung Police Station, Ranchi in response to the letter (ज्ञापाांक) 1433 dated 05.06.2026 issued for inspection of the representation submitted by the petitioner before Senior 2026:JHHC:17825-DB 10 Superintendent of the police. For ready reference the said letter (ज्ञापाांक) 636 of 2026 is being quoted as under: ज्ञापाांक 6.36/2026 सेवा में, लाप ांग थाना कार्ाालर्, लाप ांग, र ांची। दिनाांक......17.06.2.026 वरीर् प दलस अधीक्षक मह िर् रााँची। प्रसांगः -भविीर् कार्ाालर् का ज्ञापाांक 1433/म 0ग्रा0, दिनाांक 05/06/2026 । दवषर्ः - आवेिक- स मन महली दपता आनन्द महली ग्राम बरगााँव ट ली, थाना-दससई दिला ग मला के माध्यम से प्राप्त पत्र के सांबांध में। महाशर्, उपर् ाक्त प्रसांग एवां दवषर् के सांिभा में सािर सूदचत करना है दक आवेिक स मन महली दपता आनन्द महली ग्राम बरगााँव ट ली, थाना-दससई, दिला ग मला का भविीर् द्वारा प्राप्त आवेिन का िााँच मैने ग्राम बड़काक रा बरट ली, प स्ट लाप ांग, थाना लाप ांग दिला रााँची स्थित दबन्देश्वरी क मारी दपता दशवनारार्ण दसांह के घर िाकर लड़की के माता दपता एवां ग्रामीण नांि क ाँ वर साहु दपता उिर् साहु, ग लाब साहु दपता उिर् साहु के समक्ष िॉच दकर्ा त दबन्देश्वरी क मारी ने बतार्ी दक स मन महली दपता आनन्द महली ग्राम बरगााँव ट ली, थाना-दससई दिला ग मला ने म झे हमेशा परेशान करता था िब मैं घर में अके ली थी उसी समर् स मन महली मेरे घर आर्ा और डरा धमका कर एवां बहला फ सला कर अपने घर ग्राम बरगााँव ट ली, थाना-दससई दिला ग मला ले गर्ा तथा ि सरे दिन म झे बांगाल ले गर्ा। वहााँ पर मै अनिान थी। बांगाल में स मन महली के ररस्तेिार ल ग रहते है। सभी क ई दमलि ल कर िबरिस्ती शािी करा दिर्ा। मै वहााँ से तदबर्त खराब ह ने की बहाना कर अपना घर ग्राम बड़काक रा बरट ली, आ गई। स मन महली अभी भी म झे परेशान कर रहा है। मैं स मन महली के साथ नहीां रहना चाहती हाँ तथा िबरिस्ती रहने के दलर्े मिब र कर रहा है। मैं उसके द्वारा दकर्ा गर्ा शािी क नहीां मानती हाँ और न ही म झे उसके साथ रहना है। अतः श्रीमान् क सािर सूचनाथा। दवश्वाशभािन थाना प्रभारी लाप ांग थाना, रााँची। 29. From the aforesaid letter/ ज्ञापाांक, it is evident that officer-in-charge has submitted the report of the inquiry to the Senior Superintendent of police, Ranchi, conducted regarding the application filed by Suman Mahali/writ petitioner wherein he has stated that he had visited the residence of Bindeshwari Kumari (corpus) and conducted an inquiry in the presence of 2026:JHHC:17825-DB 11 her parents and fellow villagers Nand Kunwar Sahu (son of Uday Sahu) and Gulab Sahu (son of Uday Sahu). 30. In the aforesaid letter it has been mentioned that Bindeshwari Kumari(corpus) stated that Suman Mahali(petitioner) had been constantly harassing her. She recounted that while she was alone at home, Suman Mahali arrived and, through a combination of intimidation and persuasion, took her to his home in Village Bargaon Toli (P.S. Sisai, District Gumla); the following day, he took her to Bengal. She was unfamiliar with the place, though Suman Mahali had relatives residing there. Together, they forcibly married her off. She managed to return to her home by making excuse of illness. She stated that Suman Mahali continues to harass her and is coercing her to live with him. She declared that she does not recognize the marriage performed by him and has no intention of living with him. 31. As per the settled position of law, discussed in the preceding paragraphs, this Court, while exercising its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ of Habeas Corpus, is required to first arrive at a conclusion regarding the existence of illegal confinement. However, prior to that stage, it is incumbent upon the writ petitioner to substantiate the element of marriage, since the claim for production of the corpus is premised upon the alleged marital relationship. 32. In the present case, the petitioner has not produced any cogent or statutory document evidencing the solemnization of marriage. The absence of a marriage certificate or other legally recognized proof renders the claim of marriage unsubstantiated. Consequently, the foundational requirement for invoking the extraordinary remedy of Habeas Corpus namely, proof of marital status coupled with illegal confinement remains unfulfilled. 2026:JHHC:17825-DB 12 33. Further it is evident from the aforesaid letter that the corpus She declared that she does not recognize the marriage performed by the petitioner and has no intention of living with him. Thus, in the light of ratio rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Shafin Jahan v. Asokan K.M., (supra) if an individual is over eighteen years of age, no fetters could be placed on her choice on where to reside or about the person with whom she could stay. 34. In the instant case it is evident from letter ज्ञापाांक 6.36/2026, the Corpus has not recognized the validity of alleged marriage with the petitioner and infact she has complained that the Suman Mahali/writ petitioner continues to harass her and is coercing her to live with him. She declared that she does not recognize the marriage performed by him and has no intention of living with him. 35. In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court is constrained to observe that issuance of notice for production of the corpus, in the absence of cogent evidence substantiating the factum of marriage, would run contrary to the mandatory requirements of law. The extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 cannot be exercised merely on the basis of presumption, unless the petitioner produces credible and legally admissible proof of factum of marriage, the Court cannot proceed to direct production of the corpus under a writ of Habeas Corpus. 36. On the basis of discussion made hereinabove, this Court is of the considered view that the present writ petition lacks merit and the petitioner has failed to substantiate the factum of illegal detention and factum of marriage through any cogent or legally admissible evidence, and in the absence of such proof, the extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 for 2026:JHHC:17825-DB 13 issuance of a writ of Habeas Corpus cannot be invoked merely on basis of the presumption. 37. Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed. 38. I.A(s) if any stands disposed of. (Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.) (Sanjay Prasad, J.) Date : 18.06.2026 Kamlesh/ Nishant/- AFR