1 2026:CGHC:18874-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPHC No. 12 of 2026 Sudhir Dhruv S/o Mohan Dhruv Aged About 21 Years R/o Village Muswadi, P.S. Phulwari, District Baloda Bazar (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1. State of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Home Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur (C.G.) 2. Superintendent of Police District Durg (C.G.) 3. The Commissioner Municipal Corporation Raipur, Raipur (C.G.) 4. Station House Officer Police Station Patan, District Durg (C.G.) 5. Motilal Kumar (Father Of Detenue Isha), R/o Village Sonpur, P.S. Patan, District Durg (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Mr. Akhilesh Mishra, Advocate. For Respondent/State : Mr. Shashank Thakur, Additional Advocate General. BRIJMOHAN MORLE Digitally signed by BRIJMOHAN MORLE Date: 2026.04.25 12:24:11 +0530 2 Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal , Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 24.04.2026 1. Heard Mr. Akhilesh Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. Shashank Thakur, learned Additional Advocate General, appearing for the State. 2. Ms. Sandhya Rao, learned counsel holding the brief of Mr. Pankaj Agrawal, learned counsel for respondent No. 3/Municipal Corporation, Raipur, submits that in the present habeas corpus petition, the Municipal Corporation has been wrongly arrayed as respondent No. 3, as it is neither a necessary nor a proper party to the proceedings. 3. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner with the following prayers: “10.1 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a writ in the nature of Habeas Corpus directing the respondents to produce the detenue Smt. Isha before this Hon’ble Court. 10. That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to set the detenue at liberty and allow her to reside with the petitioner as per her free will. 10.3 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the police authorities to provide protection to the petitioner and the detenue; 3 10.4 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to, grant any other relief(s) deemed fit and proper in the interest of justice and equity.” 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is a citizen of India and is entitled to the protection and enforcement of all fundamental and constitutional rights guaranteed under the Constitution of India. 5. It is further submitted by the learned counsel, appearing for the petitioner that the petitioner has lawfully solemnized his marriage with his wife, Isha, on 27.03.2026 at Arya Samaj Mandir, Raipur Naka, District Durg (C.G.), in accordance with law and established customs. The said marriage is stated to be valid and subsisting, having been performed with the free will and consent of both parties, without any coercion or undue influence. It is contended that after the solemnization of the marriage, certain private individuals have interfered with the peaceful matrimonial life of the petitioner and his wife. It is further urged that the wife of the petitioner, being a major, is competent to take independent decisions, including choosing her life partner and place of residence, yet she is allegedly being unlawfully restrained by the private respondent. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner would further submit that the petitioner approached the concerned police authorities by way of a written complaint dated 13.04.2026, apprising them of the alleged illegal detention of his wife and seeking necessary protection. However, no effective steps have been taken by the authorities, compelling the 4 petitioner to invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court. 7. It is also contended that the alleged detention of the petitioner’s wife amounts to a violation of her fundamental right to life and personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. It is argued that the actions of the private respondent are arbitrary, illegal, and unconstitutional, and the inaction on the part of the police authorities constitutes a failure in discharging their statutory duties. 8. Per contra, learned State counsel submits that the present petition is misconceived and devoid of merit. It is contended that except for placing on record a certificate issued by Arya Samaj regarding solemnization of marriage, no material has been produced to substantiate the allegation that the alleged detenue is under illegal confinement or is being detained against her free will. It is further submitted that there is no representation, affidavit, or any form of communication from the alleged detenue indicating that she is under any threat, coercion, or unlawful restraint. In absence of such material, the extraordinary remedy of habeas corpus cannot be invoked. 9. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 10. Upon due consideration, this Court is not satisfied that the present habeas corpus petition discloses a genuine case of illegal detention. The petitioner has primarily relied upon a marriage certificate purportedly issued by Arya Samaj to assert the marital relationship between himself and the alleged detenue. However, the existence of a 5 marriage, by itself, does not give rise to a presumption that the wife is under illegal detention when she is residing with her parents or relatives. 11. There is no material on record to indicate that the alleged detenue has been confined against her will or that she has expressed any desire to reside with the petitioner. Significantly, there is no affidavit, statement, or any form of authorization from the alleged detenue supporting the version put forth by the petitioner. In absence of any such indication, this Court cannot presume illegal detention merely on the basis of bald assertions made in the petition. 12. It is well settled that a writ of habeas corpus is an extraordinary remedy, which is maintainable only when there is a clear and prima facie case of illegal detention. The jurisdiction cannot be invoked on the basis of conjectures or unsubstantiated allegations. 13. In the present case, the petitioner has failed to place any cogent material to demonstrate that the alleged detenue is being unlawfully restrained or deprived of her liberty. Mere apprehension or assumption, without supporting evidence, is insufficient to warrant interference by this Court in exercise of its writ jurisdiction. 14. Accordingly, finding no merit in the present petition, the same is dismissed. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Brijmohan