IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/SPECIAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION (HABEAS CORPUS) NO. 4266 of

2026 ==========================================================

DILIPBHAI DADUBHAI GADHAVI Versus STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS.

==========================================================

Appearance:

MR MALAVSINGH N CHAUHAN(10279) for the Applicant(s) No. 1 MS BHAVINI N CHAUHAN(10271) for the Applicant(s) No. 1 MS ASMITA PATEL, ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for the Respondent(s) No. 1 ========================================================== CORAM:HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE SANGEETA K. VISHEN and HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D. M. VYAS Date : 02/04/2026

ORAL ORDER

(PER : HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE SANGEETA K. VISHEN)

1. Captioned writ petition is filed seeking direction to the respondent authorities to produce the corpus; the daughter of the applicant.

2. Being aggrieved, Ms Bhavini N. Chauhan, learned advocate for the applicant has made submissions along the lines of the averments made in the writ petition. It is submitted that the corpus, was staying in the joint family consisting of mother, grandfather and grandmother; however the mother is suffering with mental illness. It is submitted that owing to the intense influence of the respondent no.3 that the corpus left without informing the applicant and others. The applicant is sure about the fact that the corpus has been detained by the respondent no.3 unlawfully. Besides, the missing complaint was preferred and has not been acted upon till date inasmuch as, the statement of the corpus is not recorded and hence, her whereabouts are not known. With this submissions it is urged that suitable direction be issued to the respondents to produce the corpus.

3. Ms Asmita Patel, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, upon service of the advance copy of the writ petition has taken the instructions. It is submitted that the corpus is 28 years of age while respondent no.3 is 24 years and he is working with the bank. It is submitted that the corpus and the respondent no.3 have willingly gone together. Moreover, from the averments made in the writ petition, it does not appear that the corpus is illegally detained. Besides, the corpus is adult aged 28 years and therefore to suggest that she is illegally detained by the respondent nos.3, 4 and 5, is far from truth.

4. Heard the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties.

5. The captioned petition is filed with following prayers seeking direction to the respondents to produce the corpus; aged 28 years.

“A. Admit and allow this petition.

B. This Hon’ble Court may be please to issues a writ of habeas corpus or a writ in nature of habeas corpus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the respondents and/or any other authority to produce the corpus-Hinaben Dilipbhai Mehdu (Gadhavi)-daughter of the petitioner, before this Hon’ble Court.

C. This Hon’ble Court may be please to pass appropriate order as per her wish and will regarding custody.

D. Any other or further relief as may be deemed fit, just and proper may kindly be granted to the petitioner.”

6. It is the case of the applicant that the corpus aged 28 years is illegally detained by the respondent no.3. The record further suggest that the corpus is missing since 08.02.2026, followed by the General Diary Entry (Janva Jog) on 11.02.2026. As per the statement made in the General Diary Entry (Janva Jog), the corpus has left the home on her volition. It further appears that the family members of the corpus were trying to get her married somewhere else which was not acceptable to her. Having left with no option, the corpus has left the house. Pertinently, in the General Diary Entry (Janva Jog) there is not a whisper that the corpus is illegally detained by the respondent no.3 let alone she is being taken away by him.

7. Adverting to the submissions made in the writ petition, there is not a whisper about the respondent no.3 unlawfully detaining the corpus except making a bare statement. Considering the age