(1) Cri. W.P. 1261-2026 .odt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 1261 OF 2026 Dipak Balasaheb Devkar Age : 23 Years, Occ. Service, Residing at Devkar Vasti, Near Mahadev Mandir, Shahpur, Ahilynagar – 414 604 ..PETITIONER VERSUS 1. State of Maharashtra, Through its Secretary, Home Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai. 2. Superintendent of Police, Ahilynagar 3. The Police Inspector, Newasa Police Station, District Ahilynagar 4. Annasaheb Dattu Kolte, Age : Adult, Occ. Agriculture, R/o. Near Hanuman Mandir, Shahapur, Tal. Newasa, Dist. Ahilynagar 5. Sangita Annasaheb Kolte, Age : Adult, R/o. Shahapur, Tal. Newasa, Dist. Ahilyanagar 6. Vishal Annasaheb Kolte, Age : Adult, R/o. Shahapur, Tal. Newasa, Dist. Ahilyanagar ... Mr. Omkar Nevgi h/f Mr. V.S. Dahihande, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. G.A. Kulkarni,A.P.P. for Respondent Nos. 1 to 3. ... CORAM : SANDIPKUMAR C. MORE AND VAISHALI PATIL-JADHAV, JJ. DATE : 08.09.2026 2026:BHC-AUG:41737-DB (2) Cri. W.P. 1261-2026 .odt ORDER (PER SANDIPKUMAR C. MORE, J.) :- 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally with the consent of learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. 2. The petitioner, posing himself as husband of the missing girl, has prayed for issuance of Writ of Habeas Corpus for her production before this Court. According to him, he knows the missing girl since their school days and around the year 2023 their close friendship turned into love relationship. Accordingly, they decided to solemnize the marriage and the petitioner along with the missing girl, performed marriage on 13.05.2026 at Alandi voluntarily. However, immediately after marriage, when they were residing together, the brother of the missing girl i.e. respondent No.6, abducted her on 21.07.2026 and as such, he was constrained to file missing report on 25.07.2026. According to him, the missing girl, who was detained by respondent Nos. 4 to 6, was compelled to lodge false F.I.R. No. 345 of 2026 at Sonai Police Station, for the offence punishable under Sections 64, 64(2)(m), 69, 75(1), 75(2), 78(1),49, 87, 352, 351(2), 351(2), 351(3), 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 under their pressure. As such, the applicant has sought issuance of Writ of Habeas Corpus. (3) Cri. W.P. 1261-2026 .odt 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently argued that the petitioner as well as the missing girl, are major and they can reside with each other, wherever they want. He pointed out that, the F.I.R was lodged by the missing girl under pressure of respondent Nos. 4 to 6, but today also, the missing girl intends to reside with him. 4. On the contrary, the learned A.P.P., strongly opposed the submissions made on behalf of the petitioner by pointing out that though the missing girl is major, but she has in fact lodged an F.I.R. against the petitioner for committing rape by performing a false marriage. As such, he pointed out that Writ of Habeas Corpus cannot be issued in this matter, since the missing girl is not detained, but she is voluntarily in the company of her family members. As such, he prayed for dismissal of the petition. 5. Admittedly, the petitioner as well as the missing girl, are major and they are free to reside anywhere as per their own choices. Though certain photographs and marriage certificate are produced on record by the petitioner, showing that they performed marriage at Alandi and started cohabiting with each other, but it is equally important to note that the missing girl has in fact lodged an F.I.R with allegation of rape against the petitioner. (4) Cri. W.P. 1261-2026 .odt 6. On going through the said F.I.R, nowhere it reflects that she lodged the said F.I.R under the pressure of her family members. Moreover, the petitioner has already obtained pre- arrest bail in the said crime. Under such circumstances, it cannot be inferred that the missing girl is detained by her family members. Moreover, the missing girl has attained majority, and therefore, she is free to reside anywhere, as per her own choice. Accordingly, we are not inclined to grant any Writ of Habeas Corpus in this matter. Thus, the petition stands dismissed. Rule stands discharged. (VAISHALI PATIL-JADHAV) (SANDIPKUMAR C. MORE) JUDGE JUDGE Y.S. Kulkarni