IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

260 Decided on : 23.09.2025 PARDEEP KUMAR . . . PETITIONER VS.

STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS . . . RESPONDENTS CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY VASHISTH PRESENT: Mr. R.S. Dhillon, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Jasdeep Singh, Addl. AG, Punjab.

****

SANJAY VASHISTH, J. (Oral)

The present Habeas Corpus petition has been filed by petitioner-Pardeep Kumar, father of detenue (Saroj Rani), on 11.07.2025, the following order was passed:-

“i) Present criminal writ petition has been filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, seeking issuance of a writ in the nature of Habeas Corpus, directing official respondents No. 2 and 3 to secure the release of the detenue, namely Saroj Rani (daughter of the petitioner), from the alleged illegal custody of private respondents No. 4 and 5.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the detenue, Saroj Rani, aged 20 years, is missing and it is apprehended that she has been wrongfully detained by respondent No. 4–Vijay Kumar, who is already married to another woman.

i) Notice of motion for 28.07.2025.

ii) Mr. Neeraj Madaan, learned Senior Deputy Advocate General, Punjab, appears on behalf of the respondent-State.

Let a status report, along with the statements of all concerned parties, be filed on or before the next date of hearing”.

Today, learned State counsel informed that the alleged detenue, Saroj Rani, is in fact a major and as per her statement recorded on 18.08.2025, before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Abohar, she stated that she is residing with Vijay Kumar of her own free will and without any pressure.

Even she is present before this Court today as well, and states that she reiterates the substance of her earlier statement that she is in a live- in relationship with Vijay Kumar-respondent No.4, with her sweet will, and that there is no pressure of any kind upon her. The detenue Saroj Kumari is being identified by Head Constable Himanshu Kumar.

In view of the stand taken by learned counsel for the respondents and also the detenue, as already recorded above, there is no need to proceed further in the present case.

Accordingly the petition is disposed of, as same having been rendered infructuous.

(SANJAY VASHISTH)

JUDGE September 23, 2025 Poonam Sharma

Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No

Whether Reportable: Yes/No