SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Online)(Chh) 7662

IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
HRIDAY SHARMA – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF CHHATTISGARH – Respondent
WPHC/2/2026



##PAGE1##

1

2026:CGHC:10226-DB

NAFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

WPHC No. 2 of 2026

Hriday Sharma S/o Ripan Sharma Aged About 20 Years R/o - Ward No. 42,

Nahar Para, Check Dam Road, Devrikhurd, Bilaspur, District - Bilaspur (C.G.)

... Petitioner(s)

versus

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through - The Secretary, Department Of Women And

Child Development, S-3 -23, Third Floor, Mahanadi Bhawan, Ministry, Nava

Raipur Atal Nagar, District - Raipur, Chhattisgarh Phone No. +91-771-2510945

E-Mail - secy. wcd-cg@gov.in

2 - The District OfÏcer District Women And Child Welfare, Raipur, District

Raipur (C.G.)

3 - The Director/ Program OfÏcer Nari Niketan, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.)

4 - The Collector Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.)

... Respondent(s)

(Cause Title Taken from Case Information System)

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Niraj Baghel, Advocate.

For Respondent(s) : Mr. Priyank Rathi, Government Advocate.

Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice

Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal , Judge

Order on Board

Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice

27/02/2026

1 Heard Mr. Niraj Baghel, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr.

Priyank Rathi, learned Government Advocate for the State/respondents.

##PAGE2##

2

2 By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the

petitioner seeks for a direction to the respondent No. 3 to release his wife

and son from detention.

3 Facts, as projected by the petitioner are that he is the resident of

Bilaspur. The petitioner is a Hindu and belongs to Brahmin Caste and his

wife (alleged detenue) (hereinafter referred to as ‘X’) is a Muslim. They

were in relationship for last 4-5 years. The family members of the

detenue was not ready for her marriage with the petitioner because of

their different faiths. Therefore, she ran away along with the petitioner

from her house. The petitioner and the detenue firstly married at the Kali

Mandir and started living as husband and wife under one roof. Thereafter

the brothers of the detenue took her back and were forcing her to marry

with another man against her will and without her consent. Again the

petitioner and detenue came into contact and they came to Devrikhurd,

Bilaspur and residing there since July, 2023. They are married and from

the said wedlock, the detenue became pregnant in the year 2025. On the

complaint of one Ashok Kumar, who is a Liaison OfÏcer at Freedom Firm

NGO, an FIR was registered against the petitioner under Sections 141,

143 (4), 64(2)(m) of Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and 14(a)(b), 5(L)/6

of the Prevention of child from the Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act at the

Police Station, Pachpedi, District Bilaspur. During the pendency of the

criminal trial, the petitioner was in judicial custody and the detenue was

admitted at the Nari Niketan, Raipur. However, the petitioner was

acquitted of all the charges vide judgment dated 29.10.2025 passed in

Special Criminal Case No. 51/2025 by the learned Additional Sessions

Judge/First Fast Track Special Court (POCSO Act) Bilaspur.

##PAGE3##

3

4 Mr. Baghel, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that when the

petitioner was in prison, the detenue ‘X’ gave birth to a male child

(hereinafter referred to as ‘Y’) at Nari Niketan. Since then, the

petitioner's wife ‘X’ and son ‘Y’ are living at the Nari Niketan, Raipur. The

petitioner submitted a representation (Annexure P/4) before the Nari

Niketan, Raipur for release of his wife and child which is still pending. On

12.11.2025, he also made an application/representation before the

president/ OfÏcer-in-Charge, District Women and Child Welfare, Raipur,

Distt. Raipur which is also pending and his wife and child have not been

released from Nari Niketan. The marriage between the petitioner and ‘X’

is legal and the respondent authorities cannot illegally detain them.

5 On the other hand, Mr. Priyank Rathi, learned counsel for the

State/respondents submits that this petition deserves to be dismissed on

the ground that on 18.03.2025, the SHO, Torwa made a communication

to Child Protection OfÏcer (CWC), regarding keeping of ‘X’

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top