IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

222 Decided on : 02.04.2026 Sharmila Devi . . . Petitioner(s)

Versus State of Haryana and others . . . Respondent(s)

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY VASHISTH Present : None for the petitioner(s).

Mr. Amish Sharma, AAG Haryana ****

SANJAY VASHISTH, J. (Oral)

1. Petitioner – Sharmila Devi, being mother of Rahul has filed instant petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India for issuance of writ in the nature of Habeas Corpus for producing the detenue -Rinki before this Court.

2. After hearing counsel for the petitioner, following was recorded on

24.09.2025:

“1. Present petition has been filed by the petitioner for issuance of direction to the respondents to produce the detenue namely Rinki (aged 17 years and 11 months) before this Court, who has been illegally and forcefully handed over to her parents by the respondent – police, in utter violation of the order dated 23.06.2025 passed in CRWP-6585-2025.

2. Counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is the mother of one Rahul, who had eloped along with the detenue, Rinki, who is a minor girl aged 17 years and 11 months. It is further submitted that a protection petition bearing CRWP-6585-2025 was filed before this Court and was disposed of on 23.06.2025 (Annexure P-3), with a direction to the Superintendent of Police, Rewari, to decide the representation in accordance with the law laid down in the case of P ..... Minor.

3. Further contends that the detenue, being minor, should be taken out of the custody of her lawful guardian, as such custody would be in violation of the directions issued by this Court in the aforesaid case of P .....Minor.

4. Notice of motion.

5. On advance notice, Mr. Kanwar Sanjiv Kumar, AAG, Haryana, puts an appearance on behalf of the respondent/State.

6. Prima facie, this Court finds that prayer made by the petitioner through present petition, does not appear to be convincing. However, in order to apprise the Court regarding the status of relationship between the detenue and Rahul, learned State counsel is directed to file a status report in the matter.

7. List again on 08.10.2025.”

3. Today, learned State counsel has filed status report dated 13.12.2025 in the Court and the same is taken on record.

4. Learned State counsel submits that present petition is not maintainable and rather it can be disposed of because alleged detenue is presently residing with her parents and in regard to her safety, she has clearly stated that there is no apprehension to her life while staying with her parents. He further submits that son of the petitioner, namely Rahul alias Kalia had infact kidnapped the detenue from lawful custody of her guardians and thereupon committed Aggravated Penetrative Sexual Assault with the detenue. Resultantly, he was arrested on 25.09.2025 in pursuance to the registration of FIR No. 164 dated 17.06.2025 registered under Sections 137(2), 96, 64(2) of BNS and Section 6 of the POCSO Act at Police Station Kalanaur, District Rohtak.

5. In view of the explanation given in paragraph Nos. 5, 6, 7 and 8 of status report, this Court does not find any reason to continue with the proceedings, as there is no substance/merit in the allegations.

Accordingly, the petition is dismissed.

Pending misc. application(s), if any, also stand disposed of.

(SANJAY VASHISTH)

April 02, 2026 JUDGE reena

Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No

Whether Reportable: Yes/No