Back
2025 Supreme(Del) 183
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Chandra Dhari Singh, Anup Jairam Bhambhani, JJ.
Ronojit Alias Ranajit Sardar - Petitioner
Versus
State NCT Of Delhi And Ors. - Respondents
W.P.(CRL) 689 of 2025
Decided On 27-03-2025
For the Petitioner:Ms. Jyoti Taneja, Mr. Parikshat Vig and Mr. Shivam Malhotra, Advocates.
For the Respondent:Mr. Sanjay Lao, Standing Counsel (Crl.) with Ms. Priyam Agarwal, Mr. Abhinav Kr. Arya and Mr. Aryan Sachdeva, Advocates, SI Vikas, P.S.:Inder Puri, Mr. Mohit Miglani, Advocate.
The court ruled that a habeas corpus petition is unnecessary when the individual in question confirms their safety and marital status independently.
Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Article 226 - Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 - Petition for Habeas Corpus - Petitioner sought to produce his missing wife and requested a speedy investigation into her disappearance - The court found that the missing wife had married another individual and confirmed her safety via video-call. (Paras 1-4)
(B) Marital Status - The court clarified that it did not express any view on the marital status of the missing wife with either the petitioner or the new husband. (Paras 5-6)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner sought a writ of Habeas Corpus for his wife, who had been missing since 22.02.2025, but it was revealed that she had married another man prior to the petition.
Findings of Court:
The court found no reason to keep the habeas corpus petition pending as the wife was safe and had married someone else.
Issues: The main issue was the marital status of the missing wife and the validity of her marriage to the petitioner.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that since the wife confirmed her safety and new marriage, the habeas corpus petition was no longer necessary.
Result: Petition disposed of.
ORDER :
1. The instant petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 has been preferred on behalf the petitioner seeking the following reliefs :
“a. Issue a writ of Habeas Corpus directing the Respondents to produce the missing wife of the Petitioner namely, Mrs. Laxmi W/O Ronojit R/O WZ-41, Das Ghara, Todarpur, Inderpuri, West (Delhi), Delhi-110012, aged 19 years missing under mysterious circumstances since 22.02.2025;
b. Issue a writ of Mandamus directing registration of a case and proper/ speedy investigation and expeditious probe into the disappearance of the Petitioner’s wife;
c. Pass any such directions or order that this Hon’ble Court deems fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the abovementioned case.”
2. As per the status report filed by the State, the missing wife/Laxmi has gotten married to one Sheikh Anwar. The Investigating Officer present before the court has made a WhatsApp video-call to Ms. Laxmi and the court has interacted with her. She has categorically stated that she is safe and had married Sheikh Anwar on 20th September, 2024, that is prior to the marriage with the present petitioner.
3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, on instructions, has contradicted what has been stated by Ms. Laxmi on the WhatsApp video-call. Counsel submits that Laxmi could not have married Sheikh Anwar on 20th September, 2024 since her marriage to the petitioner is evidenced by Certificate dated 21st September, 2024 issued by the Kalyani Court, Nadia, West Bengal.
4. In view of the above, on the basis of the appearance of Ms. Laxmi through WhatsApp video-call and her statements that she is now married with Sheikh Anwar, this court does not find any reason to keep this habeas corpus petition pending as nothing is left for further adjudication.
5. However, it is clarified that this court has not been expressed any view on the marital status of Ms. Laxmi either with the petitioner or with the within name Sheikh Anwar.
6. The petition is disposed-of.
7. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.
