1 CGHC010221092026 2026:CGHC:28163-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPHC No. 17 of 2026 1 - Smt. Shubha Sahu W/o Shri Dhatri Kumar Sahu Aged About 52 Years R/o Vivekanand Nagar Mopka P.S. Sarkanda District Bilapsur C.G. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through- The Secretary Home Department Atal Nagar Nawa Raipr District Raipur C.G. 2 - Collector Bilaspur District Bilaspur C.G. 3 - The Superintendent Of Police Bilaspur District Bilaspur C.G. 4 - Station House Officer, Police Station Sarkanda District Bilaspur C.G. 5 - Naman Yadav R/o Sai Nagar Khari Ghat Police Station Gorakhpur District Jabalpur M.P. ... Respondent(s) (Cause title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. D. N. Prajapati, Advocate along with Mr. Krishnakant Prajapati, Advocate. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Priyank Rathi, Govt. Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 08/07/2026 1. Heard Mr. D. N. Prajapati along with Mr. Krishnakant Prajapati, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. Priyank Rathi, learned Government ALOK SHARMA Digitally signed by ALOK SHARMA Date: 2026.07.09 11:11:51 +0530 2 Advocate, appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 4/State. 2. By way of the present petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner seeks the following relief(s): “10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, thereby directing the respondents no. 3 & 4 to produce the daughter of petitioner namely Garima Sahu daughter of Dhatri Kumar Sahu before the Hon'ble Court. 10.2 That, any other relief/order which may deem fit and just in the facts and circumstances of the case including award of the costs of the petition may be given.” 3. This Court, vide order dated 19.06.2026, issued notice to respondent No.5 and directed him to produce the corpus, namely Garima Sahu, before this Court. 4. In compliance with the aforesaid order, respondent No.5 Naman Yadav, with whom the corpus is stated to be residing, has produced the corpus, namely Garima Sahu, before this Court today. The corpus has been duly identified by her mother, who is present in Court along with learned counsel for the petitioner. 5. On a query being made by this Court as to whether she is residing with respondent No.5 on her own free will or whether she has been illegally detained by him, the corpus stated that she is residing with respondent No.5 on her own free will and volition. She further stated that she is a major aged about 25 years and categorically submitted that no untoward incident has occurred with her. She also expressed her desire to continue residing with respondent No.5 Naman Yadav of her own volition. 3 6. Learned State counsel has also produced the statement of the corpus, Garima Sahu, recorded on 07.07.2026 by the police of the concerned police station. It is submitted that she was recovered yesterday and has thereafter been produced before this Court by respondent No.5, who is also present in Court. 7. Having considered the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties, perused the material available on record and taken note of the statement made by the corpus before this Court as well as the statement recorded by the police, it is evident that the corpus, namely Garima Sahu, is a major and stated that she is residing with respondent No.5, namely Naman Yadav, out of her own free will and volition. She has further categorically stated that no untoward incident has occurred with her and that she has not been illegally detained by respondent No.5 or by any other person. In a petition of the present nature, once the corpus appears before the Court and states that she is a major and is residing at a place of her own choice without any force, coercion or illegal restraint, no case for issuance of a writ of habeas corpus survives. In view of the categorical statement made by the corpus and there being no material to indicate any illegal detention, this Court does not find any ground to grant the relief sought in the present petition. 8. Accordingly, the petition, being devoid of substance, deserves to be and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Alok