Patna High Court

Sahana Khatun @ Sahana KhatoonversusThe State of Bihar, through the Additional Chief Secretary, Deptt. of Home (Police), Bihar Sardar

Decided: 4 February 2026
Disposal: DISMISSED
Bench: SUDHIR SINGH RAJESH KUMAR VERMA

Holding

The petitioner, being the mother of the accused, has no locus standi to maintain the writ of habeas corpus for the recovery of the victim girl.

Summary

The petitioner, mother of a minor accused in an FIR under Section 96 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita for alleged kidnapping of a 17‑year‑old girl, filed a writ of habeas corpus and mandamus seeking the victim's release from alleged illegal detention. The victim's natural guardians had already lodged the FIR and were conducting an investigation. The Court examined whether the petitioner, who is not a guardian of the victim, has locus standi to invoke a habeas corpus remedy. Relying on the principles laid down in Kanu Sanyal v. District Magistrate and Home Secretary (Prison) v. H. Nilofer Nisha, the Court held that the writ is available only to protect personal liberty where unlawful detention is established, and the petitioner’s interest aligns with the accused, not the victim. Consequently, the petition was deemed an abuse of process and dismissed as not maintainable.

Issues considered

Does the mother of the accused have locus standi to file a habeas corpus petition for the alleged victim minor?
Is there sufficient evidence of unlawful detention of the minor to justify issuance of a writ of habeas corpus?
Is the petition an abuse of process of law?

Legislation cited

Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita — s. 96

Subjects

habeas corpus
locus standi
personal liberty
minor
kidnapping
human trafficking
writ of mandamus
abuse of process
Article 226
criminal procedure

Judgment

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Criminal Writ Jurisdiction Case No.205 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-4 Year-2026 Thana- ROSERA District- Samastipur
======================================================
Sahana Khatun @ Sahana Khatoon W/o Md. Safik Miya Resident of Ward
No. 05, Dharampur Jairam, P.O and P.S.- Rahua, District Samastipur

... ... Petitioner/s
Versus

1. The State of Bihar, through the Additional Chief Secretary, Deptt. of Home
(Police), Bihar Sardar Patel Bhawan, Nehru Marg Patna, Bihar
2. The Additional Chief Secretary (ACS Home), Deptt. of Home (Police),
Bihar Sardar Patel Bhawan, Nehru Marg Patna
3. The Director General of Police, Sardar Patel Bhawan, Nehru Marg, Patna,
Bihar
4. The Additional Director General of Police, Bihar, Patna, Sardar Patel
Bhawan Nehru Marg, Bihar, Patna
5. The Additional Director General of Police, Bihar, Patna, Sardar Patel
Bhawan, Nehru Marg, Bihar, Patna
6. The Additional Director General of Police, Criminal Investigation Deptt.
(CID), Bihar, Patna Sardar Patel Bhawan Nehru Marg, Bihar
7. The Inspector General of Police, Darbhanga Range, Darbhanga
8. The Deputy Inspector General of Police, Darbhanga Range, Patna
9. The Superintendent of Police, Samastipur, Bihar
10. The Additional Superintendent of Police, Samastipur, Bihar
11. The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Legal, Samastipur, Bihar
12. The Sub Divisional Police Officer Rosera, I Samastipur, Bihar
13. The Sub Divisional Police Officer Rosera, II Samastipur, Bihar
14. The Station House Officer, Rosera, Police Station, Samastipur, Bihar
15. The Investigation Officer, Rosera, (Rosera Police Station Case no. 4 of
2026), P.S. Samastipur, Bihar

... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Manish Kumar No. 13, Advocate
Mr. Rohit Kumar, Advocate
Mrs. Shreya, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr. A.C to A.G.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHIR SINGH
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR VERMA
ORAL ORDER
Patna High Court CR. WJC No.205 of 2026(2) dt.04-02-2026
2/8

(Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHIR SINGH)

2 04-02-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned

counsel appearing for the State.

2. This writ in the nature of Habeas Corpus has been

preferred seeking the following reliefs:-

“(I) For issuance of a writ, in the nature of
WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS directing the Superintendent
of Police, Samastipur to take the Victim girl from the
custody of miscreants, who has illegally detained the victim
girl in their custody.
(II) For issuance of a writ of mandamus
directing the Superintendent of Police, Samastipur to
produce the victim girl in the Hon’ble Court and be
released the victim girl from the custody of the miscreant,
and be handed over her to parents and it is further be
pleased to take necessary legal steps against miscreant
accordance with law.
(III) For issuance of any other writ/writs, for
granting any other relief/reliefs for which petitioners are
found entitled to the facts and circumstances of the present
case.”

3. The brief facts of the case, as per the petitioner, are

that on 05.01.2026, a minor girl, namely Soni Kumari, aged

about 17 years, daughter of Devendra Das, resident of village

Rahua, Police Station-Rosera, District-Samastipur, left her

house for attending school and did not return thereafter.

Subsequently, on the basis of a written complaint lodged by her

father, Rosera (Samastipur) P.S. Case No. 04/2026 dated
Patna High Court CR. WJC No.205 of 2026(2) dt.04-02-2026
3/8

09.01.2026 was registered under Section 96 of the Bharatiya

Nyaya Sanhita against Mohammad Salman, son of the

petitioner, alleging his involvement in the offence of

kidnapping/procuration of a minor girl and apprehension of

human trafficking.

4. The petitioner, who is the mother of the accused

named in the aforesaid F.I.R., has alleged that prior to

registration of the said case, her minor son, aged about 16 years,

had himself gone missing on 05.01.2026 and that despite

repeated representations including written complaints and

emails, no F.I.R. was registered regarding his disappearance. It

is asserted that neither the minor girl nor the petitioner’s son has

been traced till date and that the implication of her son in the

F.I.R. is arbitrary and without due application of mind.

5. Upon perusal of the pleadings and submissions

advanced on behalf of the parties, the core issue that arises for

consideration in the present case is: Whether the petitioner,

being the mother of the accused, named in F.I.R. i.e. Rosera

(Samastipur) P.S. Case No. 04/2026), has the locus standi to

maintain a writ petition in the nature of Habeas Corpus for

recovery of the victim girl(of said F.I.R.), when the natural

guardians of the victim girl are conscious of the facts, and have
Patna High Court CR. WJC No.205 of 2026(2) dt.04-02-2026
4/8

already instituted the said F.I.R., and investigation pursuant

thereto is going on.

6. The writ of Habeas Corpus is a prerogative and

extraordinary constitutional remedy available under Article 226

of the Constitution of India to secure the liberty of a person who

is alleged to be under illegal or unlawful detention. The essential

condition for issuance of such writ is the existence of detention

without authority of law. Though the scope of the writ has

expanded over time, its foundational object remains the

protection of personal liberty and not adjudication of disputes

arising out of criminal accusations.

7. The Supreme Court in Kanu Sanyal v. District

Magistrate, Darjeeling, reported in (1973) 2 SCC 674, has

authoritatively explained the true nature, scope and object of a

writ of Habeas Corpus. Paragraph 4 of the said judgment, reads

as follows:

“4..It will be seen from this brief history
of the writ of habeas corpus that it is essentially a
procedural writ. It deals with the machinery of
justice, not the substantive law. The object of the
writ is to secure release of a person who is illegally
restrained of his liberty. The writ is, no doubt, a
command addressed to a person who is alleged to
have another person unlawfully in his custody
requiring him to bring the body of such person
before the Court, but the production of the body of
the person detained is directed in order that the
circumstances of his detention may be inquired into,
or to put it differently, ‘in order that appropriate
Patna High Court CR. WJC No.205 of 2026(2) dt.04-02-2026
5/8

judgment be rendered on judicial enquiry into the
alleged unlawful restraint’...”

8. In the opinion of this Court, a Habeas Corpus

petition may, in appropriate cases, be filed not only by the

detenue but also by a third person. However, such locus is

confined to persons who have a close, legitimate and bona fide

interest in the liberty of the detenue, such as parents, spouse or

lawful guardians, particularly where the detenue is a minor or is

incapable of approaching the Court. The locus so recognized is

not unqualified and cannot be extended to persons whose

interest is unknown to the detenue or aligned with an accused in

a criminal case relating to the alleged detention.

9. Applying the aforesaid principles to the facts of the

present case, it is evident that the natural guardians of the victim

girl, namely her parents are fully conscious of the facts and

circumstances. They have already invoked the criminal law

machinery by lodging an F.I.R. alleging kidnapping and human

trafficking, and investigation pursuant thereto is admittedly

pending. Despite being fully aware of the alleged disappearance

of their minor daughter, they have not approached this Court

seeking a writ of Habeas Corpus.

10. The petitioner, on the other hand, is the mother of

the accused named in the F.I.R. and seeks issuance of a writ for
Patna High Court CR. WJC No.205 of 2026(2) dt.04-02-2026
6/8

recovery of the alleged victim girl. Prima facie, the relief sought

does not appear to be aimed at securing the liberty of the victim,

but rather seems to be an indirect attempt to undermine or

neutralize the allegations forming the subject matter of the

pending criminal investigation and to protect the petitioner’s

son.

11. This Court also finds that in the present petition

the petitioner has failed to demonstrate that the victim girl is

under illegal detention of any named respondent or authority.

Mere allegation of disappearance or dissatisfaction with the

pace or outcome of investigation cannot furnish a valid ground

for issuance of a writ of Habeas Corpus.

12. The Supreme Court in Home Secretary (Prison)

v. H. Nilofer Nisha, reported in (2020) 14 SCC 161, has

categorically held that a writ of Habeas Corpus cannot be issued

unless the Court arrives at a clear conclusion that the detenue is

under detention without authority of law. Para 16 of the said

judgment reads as follows:-

“16. A writ of habeas corpus can only
be issued when the detention or confinement of a
person is without the authority of law. Though the
literal meaning of the Latin phrase habeas corpus is
“to produce the body”, over a period of time
production of the body is more often than not
insisted upon but legally it is to be decided whether
the body is under illegal detention or not. Habeas
corpus is often used as a remedy in cases of
Patna High Court CR. WJC No.205 of 2026(2) dt.04-02-2026
7/8

preventive detention because in such cases the
validity of the order detaining the detenu is not
subject to challenge in any other court and it is only
writ jurisdiction which is available to the aggrieved
party. The scope of the petition of habeas corpus has
over a period of time been expanded and this writ is
commonly used when a spouse claims that his/her
spouse has been illegally detained by the parents.
This writ is many times used even in cases of
custody of children. Even though, the scope may
have expanded, there are certain limitations to this
writ and the most basic of such limitation is that the
Court, before issuing any writ of habeas corpus
must come to the conclusion that the detenu is under
detention without any authority of law.”

13. In view of the above discussion, this Court finds

that the petitioner is neither the victim nor the lawful guardian

of the victim. The natural guardians of the victim have already

invoked the criminal law in motion and have not chosen to

invoke the jurisdiction of this Court by filing a writ of Habeas

Corpus. The petitioner’s interest appears to be directly aligned

with that of the accused and, therefore, the present petition

prima facie appears to be an abuse of process of law.

14.Accordingly, the issue framed is answered in

negative. The petitioner, being the mother of the accused named

in the F.I.R., has no locus standi to maintain the present writ

petition in the nature of Habeas Corpus for recovery of the

victim girl.

15. Accordingly, the present writ petition stands

dismissed as not maintainable.
Patna High Court CR. WJC No.205 of 2026(2) dt.04-02-2026
8/8

16. It is, however, clarified that this order shall not

prejudice the ongoing investigation or any other remedy

available to the parties in accordance with law.

17. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand

disposed of.

(Sudhir Singh, J)

(Rajesh Kumar Verma, J)
Sachin/-

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…