Patna High Court
Sonu Kumar MishraversusThe State of Bihar, through The Director General of Police, Bihar, Patna
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
Holding
The court held that there is no unlawful detention of the petitioner’s wife and therefore no basis for issuing a writ of habeas corpus.
Summary
Petitioner Sonu Kumar Mishra filed a criminal writ petition seeking a writ of habeas corpus to release his wife, alleging unlawful detention by respondent No.4, Roshan Pathak. The police report indicated that the wife voluntarily left the matrimonial home and did not claim any illegal confinement. The court found no material suggesting unlawful detention and therefore concluded that a habeas corpus writ was not warranted. The petitioner’s request for custody of the minor child was noted, and the court advised him to approach the appropriate family court for that relief. Consequently, the petition was disposed of without granting any writ.
Issues considered
- Whether the wife of the petitioner is being held in unlawful detention justifying a writ of habeas corpus
- Whether the criminal writ jurisdiction is appropriate for a dispute concerning child custody and marital separation
Subjects
- habeas corpus
- unlawful detention
- family law
- child custody
- criminal writ jurisdiction
- petition disposal
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Criminal Writ Jurisdiction Case No.27 of 2026
======================================================
Sonu Kumar Mishra, Son of Shashi Bhushan Mishra, Resident of Village-
Nonhar, Block- Bikramganj, P.S.- Suryapura, District- Rohtas, Bihar
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar, through The Director General of Police, Bihar, Patna
Bihar
2. Superintendent of Police, Aurangabad Bihar
3. Station House Officer, Amba Police Station, District Aurangabad, Bihar.
4. Roushan Pathak, Son of Upendra Pathak Resident of Village- Ketaki, P.S.-
Dev, District- Aurangabad, Bihar.
5. Priyambada, D/o Arun Mishra R/o Village- Chandaut, P.S.- Amba, District-
Aurangabad, Bihar
6. Shaurya Mishra, through mother Priyambada, D/o Arun Mishra, R/o Village-
Chandaut, P.S.- Amba, District- Aurangabad, Bihar
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Dhananjay Kumar, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr.A.A.G.12
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHIR SINGH
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR VERMA
ORAL ORDER
(Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHIR SINGH)
3 18-02-2026 Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. The following reliefs have been sought in the
present criminal writ petition:
“A writ in the nature of Habeas Corpus or any other
appropriate writ/writs, order/orders, direction to
release the wife of the petitioner as he been unlawfully
detained at Village Ketaki, P.S. Dev, District
Aurangabad, Bihar by respondent No 4 namely Roshan
Pathak ignoring the fact that Respondent No 5 is legally
wedded wife of the petitioner and Respondent No 6 is
Patna High Court CR. WJC No.27 of 2026(3) dt.18-02-2026
2/3
minor son of the petitioner.
For that any other relief or reliefs may be granted as
Your Lordships may deem fit and proper in the facts and
circumstances of this case.”
3. A report vide Memo No. 121 dated 14.01.2026 has
been submitted by the S.D.P.O.,Aurangabad. The said report is
taken on record, which reads as under:-
4. Upon perusal of the aforesaid report, it is evident that
the wife of the petitioner has left her matrimonial home out of
her own will. It further appears that her statement has been duly
Patna High Court CR. WJC No.27 of 2026(3) dt.18-02-2026
3/3
recorded by the police authorities, wherein she has not alleged
any illegal confinement.
5. In view of the aforesaid, this Court finds that no
case for issuance of a writ of habeas corpus is made out, as
there is no allegation or material to suggest that the wife of the
petitioner is under unlawful detention.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
petitioner seeks custody of the minor child, who is presently
residing with the mother.
7. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances,
if so advised, the petitioner is at liberty to approach Family
Court of competent jurisdiction for redressal of his grievance.
8. With the aforesaid observation and liberty, the
present petition stands disposed of.
9. Pending application, if any, shall also stand
disposed of.
(Sudhir Singh, J)
(Rajesh Kumar Verma, J)
Sujit/-
U
Checking your session…