JUDGMENT

Vikas Bahl, J. (Oral). - By way of filing the present criminal writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioner prays for issuance of a writ, order or direction especially in the nature of habeas corpus for the release of the alleged detenue namely Dilraj Singh (brother of petitioner) minor aged about 4 years, son of Late Jasbir Singh alleged to have been forcibly and unlawfully detained by respondents No.4 and 5.

The brief facts of the case are that the present petitioner, aged about 34 years (born on 2.2.1987), is the sister of Dilraj Singh, the alleged detenue, aged about 4 years. The petitioner as well as Dilraj Singh are the daughter and son, respectively, of Jasbir Singh and Charanjit Kaur. The said Dilraj Singh is a test tube baby. During the delivery of Dilraj Singh, Charanjit Kaur had some medical problem due to which she expired on 1.5.2017. After the death of Charanjit Kaur, the health of Jasbir Singh also started deteriorating and he went into depression and he also expired on 8.12.2019.

As per the version of the petitioner, custody of the minor child Dilraj Singh was temporarily given to respondents No.4 and 5, who are the sister and brother-in-law of Charanjit Kaur, respectively. It is the case of the petitioner that after some time, Jasbir Singh as well as the present petitioner had repeatedly asked respondents No.4 and 5 to give back the custody of the minor child but they kept on delaying the matter. The petitioner was constrained to file application No.4812 dated 20.08.2020 (Annexure P-4) before Senior Superintendent of Police, Patiala.

In the inquiry conducted by the DSP, Headquarter Patiala, the factum of the petitioner and Jasbir Singh going to the house of respondents No.4 and 5 and requesting them to return the child came to the fore and the said fact has been mentioned in para-6 of the status report filed by way of affidavit of Deputy Superintendent of Police Circle Ghanour, District Patiala (Punjab) on behalf of Respondent No.s 1 to 3. However, when the petitioner was not given the custody, the present petition was filed.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the present petitioner is the real sister of the minor son Dilraj Singh and she is the only blood relative of the said Dilraj. It has been submitted that minor Dilraj Singh is not secure in the hands of respondents No.4 and 5 as they do not have enough means necessary for the proper upbringing and education of the minor Dilraj Singh. It is further submitted the petitioner is having enough means to educate and secure the future of minor Dilraj Singh as she is married in a well to do family. Husband of the petitioner is the owner of 30 bigha of land and her father-in-law is also owning 2 ½ acres of land. It is further submitted that the petitioner can provide a good environment for her minor brother inasmuch as her own son is aged 8 years and her daughter is aged 13 years and they are studying in a reputed school. Thus, in the presence of other children, the minor child Dilraj would be able to play with them and a positive environment would be very good for his mental and physical development. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also submitted that Jasbir Singh, father of the minor child had 6 acres of land and mutation with respect to the said land has been sanctioned in the name of the petitioner as well as in the name of minor Dilraj Singh in equal shares i.e. 3 acres each approximately.

Learned counsel for the petitioner on instructions from the petitioner has also submitted that she would not alienate the half share sanctioned in the name of the minor child till the minor Dilraj Singh attains the age of 18 years, after which he can utilize the property in the manner he wishes to. It is also submitted that the petitioner has love and affection for her minor brother and is also ready to make an FD amounting to Rs.10,00,000/- in his name to secure his future. Learned counsel for the petitioner has furt