The court ruled that discrepancies in the age of a detenue based on multiple documents necessitate a proper mechanism for investigating claims of forced confinement, particularly where minors are involved.

JUDGMENT :

Sandeep Moudgil, J.

The instant petition involves peculiar facts whereby jurisdiction of this Court has been invoked under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the Writ of Habeas Corpus for a direction to the State through Secretary, Department of Home Affairs and Justice, Haryana along with Deputy Commissioner of Police, District Panchkula and Station House Officer, Police Station Chandimandir Panchkula to ensure release of alleged detenue XXXX being in forced confinement of respondents No.4 and 5 at their house or any other place.

2. The petitioner claiming her age to be 22 years with her date of birth as 22.01.2002 as is evident from Aadhaar Card placed on record at Annexure P-1, claimed herself to be in love with alleged detenue XXXX asserting that she can't live without her showing her date of birth as 15.06.2004 (17 years+ at the time of filing the present petition) as per the Aadhaar Card (Annexure P-2).

3. It was asserted on behalf of the petitioner that she had already made an attempt to commit suicide once but was saved with the grace of almighty and on the other hand the age of alleged detenue XXXX was disputed after the respondents No.4 and 5 put in appearance and State filed its reply.

4. From the reply filed by way of an affidavit of Rajneesh Kumar, HPS, Assistant Commissioner of Police, Panchkula, it was revealed that the date of birth of alleged detenue XXXX was forged at the behest of petitioner along with other persons in a group which was otherwise verified through Primary School Certificate issued by the School Authorities as 25.08.2007 (Annexure R-4) and 1n one Aadhaar Card produced by the parents of alleged detenue XXXX i.e. respondents No.4 and 5 showing the date of birth as 15.06.2007 meaning thereby the alleged detenue XXXX was below the age of 18 years in any case if the date of birth is considered as per school certificate.

5. Glaringly one more aspect came to the light from the said affidavit/status report dated 05.03.2024 i.e. the application was made for change of date of birth of alleged detenue XXXX in her Aadhaar Card on 28.11.2023 through a Web Portal at New Delhi when XXXX petitioner abducted XXXX alongwith 2-3 other persons.

6. During the said sequence of events, FIR No.526 dated 01.12.2023 was also got registered at Police Station Chandimandir, under Section 346 IPC by parents of alleged detenue XXXX i.e. prior to filing of the present petition.

7. Though there are allegations and counter-allegations between the parties during numerous hearings before this Court including that alleged detenue XXXX is over and above the age of 18 years and her parents are forcefully marrying her with some person against her wishes and of like nature that she is being given beatings by her parents etc etc, this Court started the proceedings vide order dated 27.12.2023, called upon the respondent-State to produce the alleged detenue XXXX in Court on 04.01.2024 along with her parents i.e. respondents No.4 and 5.

8. Since respondents No.4 and 5 showed financial restraints to meet legal expenses, Mr. Sanjay Jain, learned Advocate was appointed to represent them whose fee was ordered to be borne by Haryana