HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
J.J. MUNIR, SANJIV KUMAR, JJ.
Sanny Kumar and Another – Appellants
Versus
State of U.P. and Others – Respondents
Habeas Corpus Writ Petition No. 913 of 2025
Decided On : 27-10-2025
JUDGMENT :
J.J. MUNIR, J.
1. This Habeas Corpus Writ Petition has been instituted by Sanny Kumar and his wife ‘A’ through Sanny Kumar, praying that the detenue ‘A’ be ordered to be produced before the Court and set at liberty.
2. The petitioners assert that a First Information Report (for short ‘the FIR’) was registered against petitioner No.1 on 13.04.2024, giving rise to Case Crime No.158 of 2024, under Sections 363 , 366, 376, 504, 506 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE (for short ‘the IPC’) and Sections 5 (j)(ii)/6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (for short ‘the POCSO Act’), Police Station Gauri Bazar, District Deoria with allegations to the effect that the first petitioner has kidnapped the informant’s minor daughter by blandishment. The minor, said to have been kidnapped, that is to say, ‘A’ is reported in the FIR to be aged about 14 years. The occurrence took place on 12.04.2024 in the wee hours at 1 o’clock. It all happened in the parties’ native village Deogaon, Gauri Bazar, Deoria. According to the informant, the detenue was missing and untraceable since she went away with the first petitioner.
3. As it appears, the petitioners were apprehended in connection with the crime, where the first petitioner was challaned and sent to jail, and later released on bail by this Court vide order dated 11.03.2025. The detenue was produced before the Doctor for her medical-examination. She declined an internal examination, regarding which there is an endorsement by the Doctor in the medical report dated 03.09.2024. The detenue stated before the Doctor as follows:

4. A further medical examination was done in order to determine if she was in the family way. She was examined at the Maharishi Devraha Baba Autonomous State Medical College, Deoria (U.P.) on 04.09.2024. The Doctor reported as follows:
“Single Intrauterine Live Pregnancy of Average Gestational Age 29 weeks.”
5. The Serological Report reported the pregnancy test to be positive. Another medical test, that was done to determine A’s age on 04.09.2024, led a Medical Board, comprising the Chief Medical Officer, Deoria and a Radiologist, to conclude that she was about 17 years. The said report was submitted on 12.09.2024. The detenue had passed her Class 8th from the Chandra Shekhar Azad Inter College, Deogaon, Gauri Bazar, Deoria and her scholar’s register and transfer certificate dated 19.11.2024, a copy whereof is annexed to the affidavit of compliance filed on behalf of the Superintendent of Police, Deoria, shows her date of birth to be 14.03.2010. This would reckon her to be about 14 years old on the date of occurrence. The Police, during investigation, took down the statement of the Principal, Chandra Shekhar Azad Inter College, Deogaon, Gauri Bazar, Deoria, who affirmed the contents of the scholar’s register and the transfer certificate, relating to the detenue and her date of birth recorded therein as 14.03.2010. The relevant part of the Case Diary, SCD-03 dated 13.10.2024, is also annexed to the SP’s return.
6. In these circumstances, the detenue was produced before the Child Welfare Committee, Deoria, who remarked that the papers and the preliminary investigation showed that she was a student of the Chandra Shekhar Azad Inter College, Deogaon, Gauri Bazar, Deoria, who passed her Class-VIII, and according to the records there, her date of birth was 14.03.2010. It is then remarked that she is a child within the meaning of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (for short 'the Act of 2015'), but her guardians, present before the Committee, were not inclined to take her custody. The Committee has also remarked that they spoke to the detenue in accordance with the provisions of Section 19 (6) of the POCSO Act read with Rule 4 of the relevant Rules. During this inquiry, described by the Committee as a preliminary inquiry, the detenue told the members of the Committee that she did not trust her family members. In these circumstances, the Co
AI
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.