Mr. Amol Rattan Singh, J.: - As already recorded in the order dated 24.01.2014, this application has been moved by Sanjeeda who was alleged to be a detenue in the main writ petition which was filed by her father, Yunus Khan. Somehow this application (CRM-M No.930 of 2014), was treated to be a separate petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., by the Registry of this Court and was listed as such, even though the power of attorney annexed with the petition is executed by the said Sanjeeda in favour of her counsel Mr. K.B. Raheja, and there is no power of attorney executed by Yunus Khan who was shown to be the petitioner in the petition/application, i.e. CRM No.930 of 2014.

2. The application, as a matter of fact, seeks modification of the order passed by this Court on 19.12.2013, in CRWP No.1247 of 2013. As such vide the above mentioned order dated 24.01.2014, it had been directed that the petition (CRM-M No.930 of 2014) be treated as an application moved in CRWP No.1247 of 2013 and not as a separate petition, which in any case it could not have been, in view of the fact that the title is shown to be Yunus Khan vs. State of Haryana and Ors. whereas it is moved on behalf of Sanjeeda and consequently cannot be an independent petition by Yunus Khan.

3. Though arguments were heard in detail and judgment was reserved on 29.1.2014, after notice had been issued on 24.1.2014, it is now seen that the application is not supported by an affidavit. The note given at the end of the petition is to the effect that the applicants’ affidavit could not be filed as she is in custody.

4. Though obviously she is not in custody having been sent to the protection home vide order of this Court, however, since her affidavit is not on record, it would be necessary to obtain her presence in Court to ascertain the correctness of the contents of the application.

5. Therefore, even though the matter is being adjudicated upon by this order itself, Sanjeeda would be ordered to be released from the protection home only upon her appearance before this Court and upon recording of her statement along with that of respondent No.4, i.e. Imran s/o Hameeda, whom she is stated to have married.

6. The reasons for ordering that she be released to the custody of the said Imran are given hereinunder, after discussion of the arguments raised on behalf of all parties concerned.

7. A brief background to the case is that the petition (CRWP No.1247 of 2013) was filed by Yunus Khan seeking a writ in the nature of Habeas Corpus for the production of his daughter, i.e. the present applicant, after securing her release from the allegedly illegal and unlawful custody of respondents No.4 to 6, of whom respondents No.5 and 6 are stated to be the parents and respondent No.4, their son. Connivance of respondents No.7 and 8 was also alleged, in keeping Sanjeeda in the illegal custody of respondents No.4 to 6.

8. Notice in this case had been issued on 14.06.2013 by a coordinate Bench and when it came up for hearing on 04.07.2013, this Court had recorded the contentions of counsel for Yunus Khan (petitioner), that respondent No.4 (Imran) and the present applicant (Sanjeeda) had got an order of protection in their favour from this Court on 31.05.2013 in CRM-M No.19094 of 2013, without disclosing that an FIR has been registered against respondent No.4 and others, for the alleged kidnapping of the applicant who was stated to be less than 18 years of age.

9. Subsequently, the Commissioner of Police, Faridabad, had been summoned to Court after the case made no headway with regard to production of the alleged detenue (present applicant) and eventually she was produced in Court on 18.11.2013.

10. In the order recorded on that date, it had been observed that since the alleged detenue has been brought to Court it would otherwise have rendered the writ petition infructuous but in view of her status as a minor, who had nevertheless stated that she had married respondent No.4, it would need to be d