IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Writ Jurisdiction Case No.1494 of 2026 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-83 Year-2025 Thana- BANDEYA District- Aurangabad ====================================================== Keshav Mishra S/O Saryu Mishra R/O Vill.- Radhua, P.S.- Barun, Dist.- Aurangabad. ... ... Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Home Department, Government Of Bihar, Patna. Patna 2. The Director General of Police, Government of Bihar, Patna. 3. The Divisional commissioner, Magadh Division, Gaya 4. The Inspector General of police, Magadh Range Gaya. 5. The District Magistrate Aurangabad. 6. The Superintendent of Police Aurangabad. 7. The Dy. Superintendent of Police Aurangabad (Sadar) Subdivision, Aurangabad. 8. The Station House Officer (SHO), Bandeya Police Station, Aurangabad 9. Suman Kumari Investigating officer (I.O.) of Bandeya, P.S. Case No. 83/2025 dated- 23/08/2025 10. Shivani Kumari D/o Sri Santosh Kumar R/o Vill and P.O. and P.S.-Bandeya, Dist- Aurangabad. 11. Santosh Kumar R/o Vill and P.O. and P.S.-Bandeya, Dist- Aurangabad. ... ... Respondents ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner : Mr. Varun Kumar Trivedi, Advocate Mr. Sunil Kumar Trivedi, Advocate For the State : Mr. Sushil Kumr, G.P 22 Mr. Narendra Kumar Singh, AC to GP-22 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL DUTTA MISHRA ORAL ORDER (Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD) 2 22-07-2026 This writ application has been filed seeking issuance of writ in the nature of Habeas corpus. 2. In the prayer portion of the writ application, reliefs have been sought for and on perusal thereof, it would appear Patna High Court CR. WJC No.1494 of 2026(2) dt.22-07-2026 2/5 that the petitioner is, in fact, seeking some directions to the police authorities. It is alleged that Shivani Kumari (Respondent No. 10) has married to this petitioner, however, the uncle of the Respondent No. 10 filed Bandeya P.S. Case No. 83 of 2025 dated 23.08.2025 registered under Section 96 of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita. The informant alleged that his niece had gone missing from Aurangabad and Police recovered the girl and produced before the learned SDJM, Daudnagar, Aurangabad on 28.08.2025. It is the case of the petitioner that Respondent No. 10 made a statement before the learned Magistrate that she was going to her sasural. The learned Magistrate directed the escort party to drop Respondent No. 10 at her destination. 3. At this stage, the petitioner claims that instead of dropping Respondent No. 10 at her sasural, the escort party left her in the hand of the informant. It is stated that the Respondent No. 10 is adult and as per her own will and volition, she expressed her desire to go to her sasural but the Bandeya Police and the I.O. took the Respondent No. 10 to somewhere another place. It is stated that the Respondent No. 10 is in the captivity of her parents against her will. 4. In course of hearing of the writ petition, it transpired that the petitioner is married to one Smt. Soni Devi. Patna High Court CR. WJC No.1494 of 2026(2) dt.22-07-2026 3/5 The petitioner has brought on record an affidavit said to have been sworn by Soni Devi to impress upon this Court that the petitioner had solemnised his second marriage with Shivani Kumar (Respondent No. 10), with the consent of Soni Devi. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has informed on query made by this Court that the marriage between petitioner and his wife Soni Devi still exists. There is neither any divorce between the parties nor there is dissolution of marriage. Learned counsel for the petitioner is well aware of the essential conditions of a valid marriage contained under Section 5 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 which states under Section 5(1)(a) that neither party should have a spouse at the time of marriage and such marriage is void under Section 11 of the Hindu Marriage Act. Despite all these awareness on the part of the learned counsel for the petitioner, he describes Respondent No. 10 as newly wedded wife of the petitioner. This Court does not approve such submission of learned counsel for the petitioner. 6. Learned GP-22 for the State submits that the petitioner seems to have entered into an extramarital act by claiming that he has solemnised a second marriage with Respondent No. 10. The Respondent No. 10 left the court of learned SDJM as back as on 28.08.2025. Since 28.08.2025, the Patna High Court CR. WJC No.1494 of 2026(2) dt.22-07-2026 4/5 petitioner did not lodge any complaint of either missing or that of illegal confinement of Shivani Kumari (Respondent No. 10) by her family members. After about a year, the present writ application has been preferred with a bald statement that Respondent No. 10 was, though, directed to be dropped at her desired place but she was taken to her maike by the escort party. Such allegations are coming after a long time. 7. In the kind of assertions of the petitioner, it seems to be a case of matrimonial discord and affairs outside the marriage. In such circumstances, it would not be appropriate to entertain this writ application in the form of a writ of Habeas Corpus. 8. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned GP-22 for the State as also on the perusal of the records, we are of the considered opinion that this is a misconceived and misdirected application filed by the petitioner seeking indulgence of this Court by issuing an extraordinary writ remedy. The Respondent No. 10 is an adult lady who was also working and as desired by her, the learned SDJM allowed her to go to her desired place as back as on 28.08.2025. After 28.08.2025 and till the date of filing of the writ application on 26.07.2026, i.e., within a period of 11 months, the petitioner did Patna High Court CR. WJC No.1494 of 2026(2) dt.22-07-2026 5/5 not lodge any complaint with any authority or court alleging that the escort party had dropped Respondent No. 10 at her maike or that she had been kept confined by her family members at her maike. The fact remains that the petitioner is married to Soni Devi and his marriage with Soni Devi still exists. On the basis of the mere bald statement of the petitioner, this Court is not willing to exercise its plenary and discretionary jurisdiction. No case for issuance of a writ in the nature of Habeas Corpus is made out. 9. This Court is of the opinion that for filing a thoroughly misconceived application, the petitioner is liable to pay some cost which we assess at Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand). Let the cost be deposited within four weeks from today with the Patna High Court Legal Services Committee and receipt thereof be filed in the Registry. 10. This writ application stands dismissed. lekhi/-praphul/- (Rajeev Ranjan Prasad, J) (Sunil Dutta Mishra, J) U